X Zhou1, T Sun1, H Xie1, Y Zhang1, H Zeng1, W Fu1. 1. Department of General Surgery, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Abstract
AIM: The superiority of extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) over conventional abdominoperineal excision (APE) remains controversial, despite the publication of many studies on this issue. The aim of this meta-analysis was to provide a clear, evidence-based comparison of the two procedures. METHOD: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted through a comprehensive search of the PubMed, EMBASE/Medline and Cochrane Central Library databases for all studies comparing ELAPE with conventional APE for low rectal cancer. Pooled data on circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity, intra-operative bowel perforation, perineal wound complications and local recurrence were analysed. RESULTS: Seven studies, involving a total of 2672 patients, were included. Analysis of the pooled data did not reveal a significant difference between the two operations regarding CRM positivity [risk ratio (RR) = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.40-1.57; P = 0.50, I(2) = 86%] and perineal wound complications (RR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.71-1.16; P = 0.44, I(2) = 49%), and showed a borderline reduced risk of intra-operative bowel perforation for ELAPE, but still did not reveal a significant difference between the two groups (RR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.37-1.00; P = 0.05, I(2) = 58%). CONCLUSION: The current evidence does not indicate a statistically significant superiority of ELAPE over conventional APE in terms of CRM positivity and intra-operative bowel perforation. Colorectal Disease
AIM: The superiority of extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) over conventional abdominoperineal excision (APE) remains controversial, despite the publication of many studies on this issue. The aim of this meta-analysis was to provide a clear, evidence-based comparison of the two procedures. METHOD: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted through a comprehensive search of the PubMed, EMBASE/Medline and Cochrane Central Library databases for all studies comparing ELAPE with conventional APE for low rectal cancer. Pooled data on circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity, intra-operative bowel perforation, perineal wound complications and local recurrence were analysed. RESULTS: Seven studies, involving a total of 2672 patients, were included. Analysis of the pooled data did not reveal a significant difference between the two operations regarding CRM positivity [risk ratio (RR) = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.40-1.57; P = 0.50, I(2) = 86%] and perineal wound complications (RR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.71-1.16; P = 0.44, I(2) = 49%), and showed a borderline reduced risk of intra-operative bowel perforation for ELAPE, but still did not reveal a significant difference between the two groups (RR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.37-1.00; P = 0.05, I(2) = 58%). CONCLUSION: The current evidence does not indicate a statistically significant superiority of ELAPE over conventional APE in terms of CRM positivity and intra-operative bowel perforation. Colorectal Disease
Authors: D L H Baird; C Simillis; C Kontovounisios; Q Sheng; S Nikolaou; W L Law; S Rasheed; P P Tekkis Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2017-09-11 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Anu Carpelan; J Karvonen; P Varpe; A Rantala; A Kaljonen; J Grönroos; H Huhtinen Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2018-02-14 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: A Xanthis; D Greenberg; B Jha; O Olafimihan; R Miller; N Fearnhead; J Davies; N Hall Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 1.891
Authors: Boris Schiltz; Nicolas Christian Buchs; Marta Penna; Cosimo Riccardo Scarpa; Emilie Liot; Philippe Morel; Frederic Ris Journal: World J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-06-10