Hikmet Erhan Güven1, Bülent Aksel2. 1. a Department of General Surgery , Health Sciences University, Gülhane Training and Research Hospital , Ankara , Turkey. 2. b Department of General Surgery , Health Sciences University, Ankara Oncology Training and Research Hospital , Ankara , Turkey.
Abstract
Background: We aimed to compare the short-term surgical and early surgical oncological outcomes of abdominoperineal resection (APR) and extralevator APR (ELAPR) in patients with low rectal carcinoma that have received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT), whose abdominal procedures were performed laparoscopically. Methods: One hundred and four patients who underwent APR or ELAPR for stage II/III low rectal carcinoma NACRT between 2013 and 2016 were evaluated by reviewing the standard charts for colorectal carcinoma. Results: Median follow-up for patients in APR group was 56 months(24-67 months) and 52 months(27-64 months) for ELAPR group. The postoperative complication rates were higher in ELAPR than in APR (perineal wound infection 38% vs. 22.5%(p = .03), perineal wound dehiscence 57% vs. 25%(p = .01), persistent perineal pain 28.5% vs. 13%(p = .01), urinary dysfunction 23% vs. 14.5%(p = .02), reoperation 16.5% vs. 4.8%(p = .03), respectively). Circumferential resection margin positivity, the number of lymph nodes dissected, and the rate of intra-operative perforation of the tumor were similar for both surgical techniques. Local recurrence rates at postoperative 2 years were also similar after APR and ELAPR (8% vs. 9.5%, p = .2). Conclusion: We conclude that in the era of routinely used NACRT, ELAPR is not superior to conventional APR for stage II/III low rectal carcinomas. ELAPR is associated with increased morbidity and has no short-term surgical oncological advantage over APR.
Background: We aimed to compare the short-term surgical and early surgical oncological outcomes of abdominoperineal resection (APR) and extralevator APR (ELAPR) in patients with low rectal carcinoma that have received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT), whose abdominal procedures were performed laparoscopically. Methods: One hundred and four patients who underwent APR or ELAPR for stage II/III low rectal carcinomaNACRT between 2013 and 2016 were evaluated by reviewing the standard charts for colorectal carcinoma. Results: Median follow-up for patients in APR group was 56 months(24-67 months) and 52 months(27-64 months) for ELAPR group. The postoperative complication rates were higher in ELAPR than in APR (perineal wound infection 38% vs. 22.5%(p = .03), perineal wound dehiscence 57% vs. 25%(p = .01), persistent perineal pain 28.5% vs. 13%(p = .01), urinary dysfunction 23% vs. 14.5%(p = .02), reoperation 16.5% vs. 4.8%(p = .03), respectively). Circumferential resection margin positivity, the number of lymph nodes dissected, and the rate of intra-operative perforation of the tumor were similar for both surgical techniques. Local recurrence rates at postoperative 2 years were also similar after APR and ELAPR (8% vs. 9.5%, p = .2). Conclusion: We conclude that in the era of routinely used NACRT, ELAPR is not superior to conventional APR for stage II/III low rectal carcinomas. ELAPR is associated with increased morbidity and has no short-term surgical oncological advantage over APR.