Muhammad Tayyab1, H Zaidi2, P Vieira3, T Qureshi4, N Figueiredo3, A Parvaiz3,4. 1. Colorectal Surgery, North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough, PE3 9GZ, UK. tayyab12@gmail.com. 2. Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Manchester, UK. 3. Digestive Cancer Unit, Champalimaud Clinical Centre - Champalimaud Foundation, Avenida Brasília, Lisbon, PT, Portugal. 4. Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Poole, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Abdominoperineal resection of the rectum has evolved over the last century, with few modifications until 2007, when extralevator abdominoperineal resection was introduced, which improved local disease control but resulted in a significant rise in perineal complications. We adopted a modified approach in which dissection was tailored according to magnetic resonance-defined tumour involvement. The aim of this study was to assess short-term and long-term oncological outcomes following a tailored abdominoperineal resection (APR) approach. METHODS: This study was a retrospective review of prospectively maintained databases at three centres: Portsmouth NHS Trust (UK), Poole General Hospital (UK) and Champalimaud's Cancer Foundation, Portugal. The study included consecutive patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection from October 2008 until April 2018 under the supervision of the senior author. Oncological outcomes, including overall survival and disease-free survival, were used as the main outcome measures. RESULTS: A total of 584 patients underwent rectal cancer surgery during the study period. The APR ratio was 65/584 (11%). The median age was 66 years. Neoadjuvant treatment was administered to 74% of patients. Of the patients, 91% underwent surgery via a minimally invasive approach. The median hospital stay was 7 days. Patients were followed up for a median of 41 months. Only four patients had positive resection margins. The 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates were 64% and 62%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that tailored APR has similar short-term and long-term oncological outcomes compared with extralevator abdominoperineal resection but reduced perineal wound complications. We believe this approach could be a safe alternative but recommend a larger sample size to accurately assess its effectiveness.
PURPOSE: Abdominoperineal resection of the rectum has evolved over the last century, with few modifications until 2007, when extralevator abdominoperineal resection was introduced, which improved local disease control but resulted in a significant rise in perineal complications. We adopted a modified approach in which dissection was tailored according to magnetic resonance-defined tumour involvement. The aim of this study was to assess short-term and long-term oncological outcomes following a tailored abdominoperineal resection (APR) approach. METHODS: This study was a retrospective review of prospectively maintained databases at three centres: Portsmouth NHS Trust (UK), Poole General Hospital (UK) and Champalimaud's Cancer Foundation, Portugal. The study included consecutive patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection from October 2008 until April 2018 under the supervision of the senior author. Oncological outcomes, including overall survival and disease-free survival, were used as the main outcome measures. RESULTS: A total of 584 patients underwent rectal cancer surgery during the study period. The APR ratio was 65/584 (11%). The median age was 66 years. Neoadjuvant treatment was administered to 74% of patients. Of the patients, 91% underwent surgery via a minimally invasive approach. The median hospital stay was 7 days. Patients were followed up for a median of 41 months. Only four patients had positive resection margins. The 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates were 64% and 62%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that tailored APR has similar short-term and long-term oncological outcomes compared with extralevator abdominoperineal resection but reduced perineal wound complications. We believe this approach could be a safe alternative but recommend a larger sample size to accurately assess its effectiveness.
Authors: Pierre J Guillou; Philip Quirke; Helen Thorpe; Joanne Walker; David G Jayne; Adrian M H Smith; Richard M Heath; Julia M Brown Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 May 14-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Koen C M J Peeters; Corrie A M Marijnen; Iris D Nagtegaal; Elma Klein Kranenbarg; Hein Putter; Theo Wiggers; Harm Rutten; Lars Pahlman; Bengt Glimelius; Jan Willem Leer; Cornelis J H van de Velde Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: David Sebag-Montefiore; Richard J Stephens; Robert Steele; John Monson; Robert Grieve; Subhash Khanna; Phil Quirke; Jean Couture; Catherine de Metz; Arthur Sun Myint; Eric Bessell; Gareth Griffiths; Lindsay C Thompson; Mahesh Parmar Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-03-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Phil Quirke; Robert Steele; John Monson; Robert Grieve; Subhash Khanna; Jean Couture; Chris O'Callaghan; Arthur Sun Myint; Eric Bessell; Lindsay C Thompson; Mahesh Parmar; Richard J Stephens; David Sebag-Montefiore Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-03-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Pia Näsvall; Ursula Dahlstrand; Thyra Löwenmark; Jörgen Rutegård; Ulf Gunnarsson; Karin Strigård Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-07-21 Impact factor: 4.147