Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Extralevator Abdominal Perineal Excision Versus Standard Abdominal Perineal Excision: Impact on Quality of the Resected Specimen and Postoperative Morbidity

  • Original Scientific Report
  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Abdominal perineal excision (APE) has been associated with a high risk of positive circumferential resection margin (CRM+) and local recurrence rates in the treatment of rectal cancer. An alternative extralevator approach (ELAPE) has been suggested to improve the quality of resection by avoiding coning of the specimen decreasing the risk of tumor perforation and CRM+. The aim of this study is to compare the quality of the resected specimen and postoperative complication rates between ELAPE and “standard” APE.

Methods

All patients between 1998 and 2014 undergoing abdominal perineal excision for primary or recurrent rectal cancer at a single Institution were reviewed. Between 1998 and 2008, all patients underwent standard APE. In 2009 ELAPE was introduced at our Institution and all patients requiring APE underwent this alternative procedure (ELAPE). The groups were compared according to pathological characteristics, specimen quality (CRM status, perforation and failure to provide the rectum and anus in a single specimen—fragmentation) and postoperative morbidity.

Results

Fifty patients underwent standard APEs, while 22 underwent ELAPE. There were no differences in CRM+ (10.6 vs. 13.6%; p = 0.70) or tumor perforation rates (8 vs. 0%; p = 0.30) between APE and ELAPE. However, ELAPE were less likely to result in a fragmented specimen (42 vs. 4%; p = 0.002). Advanced pT-stage was also a risk factor for specimen fragmentation (p = 0.03). There were no differences in severe (Grade 3/4) postoperative morbidity (13 vs. 10%; p = 0.5). Perineal wound dehiscences were less frequent among ELAPE (52 vs 13%; p < 0.01). Despite short follow-up (median 21 mo.), 2-year local recurrence-free survival was better for patients undergoing ELAPE when compared to APE (87 vs. 49%; p = 0.04).

Conclusions

ELAPE may be safely implemented into routine clinical practice with no increase in postoperative morbidity and considerable improvements in the quality of the resected specimen of patients with low rectal cancers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Miles WE (1908) A method of performing abdomino-perineal excision for carcinoma of the rectum and of the terminal portion of the pelvic colon. Lancet 2:1812–1813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Campos FG, Habr-Gama A, Nahas SC et al (2012) Abdominoperineal excision: evolution of a centenary operation. Dis Colon Rectum 55:844–853

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Law WL, Chu KW (2004) Abdominoperineal resection is associated with poor oncological outcome. Br J Surg 91:1493–1499

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sauer R, Liersch T, Merkel S et al (2012) Preoperative versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: results of the German CAO/ARO/AIO-94 randomized phase III trial after a median follow-up of 11 years. J Clin Oncol 30:1926–1933

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. van Gijn W, Marijnen CA, Nagtegaal ID et al (2011) Preoperative radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision for resectable rectal cancer: 12-year follow-up of the multicentre, randomised controlled TME trial. Lancet Oncol 12:575–582

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Folkesson J, Birgisson H, Pahlman L et al (2005) Swedish rectal cancer trial: long lasting benefits from radiotherapy on survival and local recurrence rate. J Clin Oncol 23:5644–5650

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nagtegaal ID, van de Velde CJ, Marijnen CA et al (2005) Low rectal cancer: a call for a change of approach in abdominoperineal resection. J Clin Oncol 23:9257–9264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nagtegaal ID, van de Velde CJ, van der Worp E et al (2002) Macroscopic evaluation of rectal cancer resection specimen: clinical significance of the pathologist in quality control. J Clin Oncol 20:1729–1734

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nagtegaal ID, Kranenbarg EK, Hermans J et al (2000) Pathology data in the central databases of multicenter randomized trials need to be based on pathology reports and controlled by trained quality managers. J Clin Oncol 18:1771–1779

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. How P, Shihab O, Tekkis P et al (2011) A systematic review of cancer related patient outcomes after anterior resection and abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer in the total mesorectal excision era. Surg Oncol 20:e149–e155

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Quirke P, Steele R, Monson J et al (2009) Effect of the plane of surgery achieved on local recurrence in patients with operable rectal cancer: a prospective study using data from the MRC CR07 and NCIC-CTG CO16 randomised clinical trial. Lancet 373:821–828

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. West NP, Finan PJ, Anderin C et al (2008) Evidence of the oncologic superiority of cylindrical abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 26:3517–3522

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. West NP, Anderin C, Smith KJ et al (2010) Multicentre experience with extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer. Br J Surg 97:588–599

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Shihab OC, Heald RJ, Holm T et al (2012) A pictorial description of extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 14:e655–e660

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Messenger DE, Cohen Z, Kirsch R et al (2011) Favorable pathologic and long-term outcomes from the conventional approach to abdominoperineal resection. Dis Colon Rectum 54:793–802

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Asplund D, Haglind E, Angenete E (2012) Outcome of extralevator abdominoperineal excision compared with standard surgery: results from a single centre. Colorectal Dis 14:1191–1196

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Perez RO, Habr-Gama A, Sao Juliao GP et al (2016) Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) following neoadjuvant chemoradiation for rectal cancer: outcomes of salvage resection for local recurrence. Ann Surg Oncol 23:1143–1148

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Kennelly RP, Rogers AC, Winter DC (2013) Multicentre study of circumferential margin positivity and outcomes following abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 100:160–166

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Perdawood SK, Lund T (2015) Extralevator versus standard abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer. Tech Coloproctol 19:142–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Prytz M, Angenete E, Ekelund J et al (2014) Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for rectal cancer–short-term results from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry. Selective use of ELAPE warranted. Int J Colorectal Dis 29:981–987

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Huang A, Zhao H, Ling T et al (2014) Oncological superiority of extralevator abdominoperineal resection over conventional abdominoperineal resection: a meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 29:321–327

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Yu HC, Peng H, He XS et al (2014) Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes after extralevator abdominoperineal excision and standard abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 29:183–191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. de Campos-Lobato LF, Stocchi L, Dietz DW et al (2011) Prone or lithotomy positioning during an abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer results in comparable oncologic outcomes. Dis Colon Rectum 54:939–946

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Foster JD, Pathak S, Smart NJ et al (2012) Reconstruction of the perineum following extralevator abdominoperineal excision for carcinoma of the lower rectum: a systematic review. Colorectal Dis 14:1052–1059

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Angelita and Joaquim Gama Institute, Rua Manoel da Nóbrega 1564, São Paulo, SP, 04001−005, Brazil

    Angelita Habr-Gama, Guilherme P. São Julião, Adrian Mattacheo, Luiz Felipe de Campos-Lobato, Edgar Aleman, Bruna B. Vailati, Joaquim Gama-Rodrigues & Rodrigo Oliva Perez

  2. School of Medicine, University of São Paulo, Rua Manoel da Nóbrega 1564, São Paulo, SP, 04001–005, Brazil

    Angelita Habr-Gama & Joaquim Gama-Rodrigues

  3. Colorectal Surgery Division, School of Medicine, University of São Paulo, Rua Manoel da Nóbrega 1564, São Paulo, SP, 04001−005, Brazil

    Rodrigo Oliva Perez

  4. Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research São Paulo Branch, Rua Manoel da Nóbrega 1564, São Paulo, SP, 04001−005, Brazil

    Rodrigo Oliva Perez

Authors
  1. Angelita Habr-Gama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guilherme P. São Julião
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Adrian Mattacheo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Luiz Felipe de Campos-Lobato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Edgar Aleman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bruna B. Vailati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Joaquim Gama-Rodrigues
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Rodrigo Oliva Perez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rodrigo Oliva Perez.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Habr-Gama, A., São Julião, G.P., Mattacheo, A. et al. Extralevator Abdominal Perineal Excision Versus Standard Abdominal Perineal Excision: Impact on Quality of the Resected Specimen and Postoperative Morbidity. World J Surg 41, 2160–2167 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-3963-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-3963-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation