OBJECTIVE: A meta-analysis was undertaken to provide an evidence-based basis of clinical trials comparing extralevator abdominoperineal excision with conventional abdominoperineal excision for low rectal tumor. METHODS: We searched through the major medical databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Science Citation Index, Web of Science for all published studies without any limit on language from January 2009 until January 2015. The following search terms were used: extralevator abdominoperineal excision or cylindrical abdominoperineal resection or conventional abdominoperineal excision or abdominoperineal excision or rectal cancer. Furthermore, Additional related studies were manually searched in the reference lists of all published reviews and retrieved articles. RESULTS: In this meta-analysis, there are a total number of 1797 patients included: 1099 patients in the ELAPE group and 698 in the APE group, and there are not statistically differences between groups in CRM [RR=0.65, 95% CI (0.41, 1.04), P=0.07] and wound complications [RR=1.14, 95% CI (1.09, 1.66), P=0.45] between ELAPE and APE. However, ELAPE has a lower rate of intraoperation perforation [RR=0.44; 95% CI (0.33, 0.60); P<0.00001] and local recurrence [RR=0.45, 95% CI (0.27, 0.77), P=0.003] than APE in terms of short follow-up time.
OBJECTIVE: A meta-analysis was undertaken to provide an evidence-based basis of clinical trials comparing extralevator abdominoperineal excision with conventional abdominoperineal excision for low rectal tumor. METHODS: We searched through the major medical databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Science Citation Index, Web of Science for all published studies without any limit on language from January 2009 until January 2015. The following search terms were used: extralevator abdominoperineal excision or cylindrical abdominoperineal resection or conventional abdominoperineal excision or abdominoperineal excision or rectal cancer. Furthermore, Additional related studies were manually searched in the reference lists of all published reviews and retrieved articles. RESULTS: In this meta-analysis, there are a total number of 1797 patients included: 1099 patients in the ELAPE group and 698 in the APE group, and there are not statistically differences between groups in CRM [RR=0.65, 95% CI (0.41, 1.04), P=0.07] and wound complications [RR=1.14, 95% CI (1.09, 1.66), P=0.45] between ELAPE and APE. However, ELAPE has a lower rate of intraoperation perforation [RR=0.44; 95% CI (0.33, 0.60); P<0.00001] and local recurrence [RR=0.45, 95% CI (0.27, 0.77), P=0.003] than APE in terms of short follow-up time.
Authors: P G Vaughan-Shaw; T Cheung; J S Knight; P H Nichols; S A Pilkington; A H Mirnezami Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2012-07-10 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Angela Fischer; Ignazio Tarantino; René Warschkow; Jochen Lange; Andreas Zerz; Franc H Hetzer Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2010-02-03 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Ingrid S Martijnse; Ralph L Dudink; Nicholas P West; Dareczka Wasowicz; Grard A Nieuwenhuijzen; Ineke van Lijnschoten; Hendrik Martijn; Valery E Lemmens; Cornelis J van de Velde; Iris D Nagtegaal; Phil Quirke; Harm J Rutten Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-08-23 Impact factor: 5.344