BACKGROUND: To compare extra levator abdomino perineal resection (ELAPER) with conventional abdominoperineal resection (APER) in terms of short-term oncological and clinical outcomes. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database including all the patients of rectal cancer who underwent APER at Tata Memorial Center between July 1, 2013, and January 31, 2015. Short-term oncological parameters evaluated included circumferential resection margin involvement (CRM), tumor site perforation, and number of nodes harvested. Peri operative outcomes included blood loss, length of hospital stay, postoperative perineal wound complications, and 30-day mortality. The χ(2)-test was used to compare the results between the two groups. RESULTS: Forty-two cases of ELAPER and 78 cases of conventional APER were included in the study. Levator involvement was significantly higher in the ELAPER compared with the conventional group; otherwise, the two groups were comparable in all the aspects. CRM involvement was seen in seven patients (8.9%) in the conventional group compared with three patients (7.14%) in the ELAPER group. Median hospital stay was significantly longer with ELAPER. The univariate analysis of the factors influencing CRM positivity did not show any significance. CONCLUSIONS: ELAPER should be the preferred approach for low rectal tumors with involvement of levators. For those cases in which levators are not involved, as shown in preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the current evidence is insufficient to recommend ELAPER over conventional APER. This stresses the importance of preoperative MRI in determining the best approach for an individual patient.
BACKGROUND: To compare extra levator abdomino perineal resection (ELAPER) with conventional abdominoperineal resection (APER) in terms of short-term oncological and clinical outcomes. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database including all the patients of rectal cancer who underwent APER at Tata Memorial Center between July 1, 2013, and January 31, 2015. Short-term oncological parameters evaluated included circumferential resection margin involvement (CRM), tumor site perforation, and number of nodes harvested. Peri operative outcomes included blood loss, length of hospital stay, postoperative perineal wound complications, and 30-day mortality. The χ(2)-test was used to compare the results between the two groups. RESULTS: Forty-two cases of ELAPER and 78 cases of conventional APER were included in the study. Levator involvement was significantly higher in the ELAPER compared with the conventional group; otherwise, the two groups were comparable in all the aspects. CRM involvement was seen in seven patients (8.9%) in the conventional group compared with three patients (7.14%) in the ELAPER group. Median hospital stay was significantly longer with ELAPER. The univariate analysis of the factors influencing CRM positivity did not show any significance. CONCLUSIONS: ELAPER should be the preferred approach for low rectal tumors with involvement of levators. For those cases in which levators are not involved, as shown in preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the current evidence is insufficient to recommend ELAPER over conventional APER. This stresses the importance of preoperative MRI in determining the best approach for an individual patient.
Entities:
Keywords:
Extra levator abdomino perineal resection (ELAPER); conventional abdominoperineal resection (APER); rectal cancer
Authors: David E Messenger; Zane Cohen; Richard Kirsch; Brenda I O'Connor; J Charles Victor; Harden Huang; Robin S McLeod Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Willem van Gijn; Corrie A M Marijnen; Iris D Nagtegaal; Elma Meershoek-Klein Kranenbarg; Hein Putter; Theo Wiggers; Harm J T Rutten; Lars Påhlman; Bengt Glimelius; Cornelis J H van de Velde Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-05-17 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Nicholas P West; Paul J Finan; Claes Anderin; Johan Lindholm; Torbjorn Holm; Philip Quirke Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-06-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: B J Moran; T Holm; G Brannagan; H Chave; P Quirke; N West; G Brown; R Glynne-Jones; D Sebag-Montefiore; C Cunningham; A Z Janjua; N J Battersby; S Crane; A McMeeking Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 3.788
Authors: Alexander T Hawkins; Katherine Albutt; Paul E Wise; Karim Alavi; Ranjan Sudan; Andreas M Kaiser; Liliana Bordeianou Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2018-04-16 Impact factor: 3.452