Standard Versus Extralevator Abdominoperineal Low Rectal Cancer Excision Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
- 628 Downloads
The extended, extralevator abdominoperineal excision has been described with the aim of improving oncological low rectal cancer patient outcomes.
Materials and Methods
A systematic literature review was conducted using Medline/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and Ovid for standard and extralevator abdominoperineal rectal cancer excision studies between 1995 and 2013. A total of 1,270 articles were identified and screened, and of these, 58 reports (1 randomized, 5 case–control and 52 cohort studies) were included for the qualitative analysis, and 6 were included for the quantitative analysis. The primary endpoints included intraoperative tumor perforation, the circumferential resection margin involvement, local recurrence rate, and the perineal wound complication rate. The secondary endpoints included the length of postoperative hospital stay and quality of life. Comprehensive Rev Men, version 5.2 was used for the statistical calculations.
A significant difference in the circumferential resection margin involvement rate [odds ratio (OR) 2.9; p < .001], intraoperative perforation (OR 4.30; p < .001), local recurrence rate (OR 2.52; p = .02), and length of hospital stay (OR 1.06; p < .001) in favor of the extended group was observed. Additionally, the perineal wound complications were higher in the extended group (OR 0.62; p = .007). No difference in quality of life was observed.
Our analysis confirms the oncological advantages of the extended abdominoperineal excision method. Although the perineal wound complications were higher, the length of postoperative hospital stay was shorter, and quality of life was not inferior to the conventional resection method.
KeywordsTotal Mesorectal Excision Circumferential Resection Margin Circumferential Resection Margin Involvement Perineal Wound Complication Perineal Wind Complication
The Authors have no commercial interest and have no financial support for the present study.
- 5.den Dulk M, Putter H, Collette L, Marijnen CA, Folkesson J, Bosset JF, et al. The abdominoperineal resection itself is associated with an adverse outcome: the European experience based on a pooled analysis of five European randomised clinical trials on rectal cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:1175–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.Google Scholar
- 15.Vaughan Shaw PG, Cheung T, Knight JS, Nichols PH, Pilkington SA, Mirnezami AH. A prospective case–control study of extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) of the rectum versus conventional laparoscopic and open abdominoperineal excision: comparative analysis of short-term outcomes and quality of life. Tech Coloproctol. 2012;16:355–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.Tekkis PP, Heriot AG, Smith J, Thompson MR, Finan P, Stamatakis JD; Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. Comparison of circumferential margin involvement between restorative and non restorative resections for rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 2005;7:369–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 40.Sideris L, Zenasni F, Vernerey D, et al. Quality of life of patients operated on for low rectal cancer: impact on the type of surgery and patients’ characteristics. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48:2180–91.Google Scholar