Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes after extralevator abdominoperineal excision and standard abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Colorectal Disease Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Whether the introduction of extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) improves survival and safety remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all comparative studies to define the efficacy and safety of ELAPE and standard abdominoperineal excision (APE).

Materials and methods

A search for all major databases and relevant journals from inception to July 2013 without restriction on languages or regions was performed. Outcome measures were the oncological parameters of circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement, intraoperative bowel perforation (IOP), and local recurrence, as well as other parameters of blood loss, operative time, length of hospitalization, and postoperative complication. The test of heterogeneity was performed with the Q statistic.

Results

A total of 949 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Oncological pooled estimates of intraoperative bowel perforation rate (RR 0.34; 95 % CI 0.21–0.54; P < 0.00001), CRM involvement (RR 0.44; 95 % CI 0.34–0.56; P < 0.00001), and local recurrence (RR 0.32; 95 % CI 0.14–0.74; P = 0.008) all showed outcomes that were significantly lower in ELAPE than in APE. A similar incidence of postoperative complication was attributed to both groups, including overall complication (RR 0.93; 95 % CI 0.66–1.32; P = 0.69), perineal wound complication (RR 0.72; 95 % CI 0.33–1.55; P = 0.39), and urinary dysfunction (RR 1.53; 95 % CI 0.88–2.67; P = 0.13).

Conclusion

ELAPE has a lower intraoperative bowel perforation rate, positive CRM rate, and local recurrence rate than APE. There is evidence that in selected low rectal cancer patients, ELAPE is a more efficient and equally safe option to replace APE. Due to the inherent limitations of the present study, future randomized controlled trials will be useful to confirm this conclusion.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Valentini V, Aristei C, Glimelius B, Minsky BD, Beets-Tan R, Borras JM, Haustermans K, Maingon P, Overgaard J, Pahlman L, Quirke P, Schmoll HJ et al (2009) Multidisciplinary Rectal Cancer Management: 2nd European Rectal Cancer Consensus Conference (EURECA-CC2). Radiother Oncol 92(2):148–163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wibe A, Syse A, Andersen E, Tretli S, Myrvold HE, Soreide O (2004) Oncological outcomes after total mesorectal excision for cure for cancer of the lower rectum: anterior vs. abdominoperineal resection. Dis Colon Rectum 47(1):48–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Marr R, Birbeck K, Garvican J, Macklin CP, Tiffin NJ, Parsons WJ, Dixon MF, Mapstone NP, Sebag-Montefiore D, Scott N, Johnston D, Sagar P et al (2005) The modern abdominoperineal excision: the next challenge after total mesorectal excision. Ann Surg 242(1):74–82

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Nagtegaal ID, van de Velde CJ, Marijnen CA, van Krieken JH, Quirke P (2005) Low rectal cancer: a call for a change of approach in abdominoperineal resection. J Clin Oncol 23(36):9257–9264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Miles WE (1971) A method of performing abdomino-perineal excision for carcinoma of the rectum and of the terminal portion of the pelvic colon (1908). CA Cancer J Clin 21(6):361–364

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Holm T, Ljung A, Haggmark T, Jurell G, Lagergren J (2007) Extended abdominoperineal resection with gluteus maximus flap reconstruction of the pelvic floor for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 94(2):232–238

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Angenete E, Correa-Marinez A, Heath J, Gonzalez E, Wedin A, Prytz M, Asplund D, Haglind E (2012) Ostomy function after abdominoperineal resection–a clinical and patient evaluation. Int J Colorectal Dis 27(10):1267–1274

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Han JG, Wang ZJ, Wei GH, Gao ZG, Yang Y, Zhao BC (2012) Randomized clinical trial of conventional versus cylindrical abdominoperineal resection for locally advanced lower rectal cancer. Am J Surg 204(3):274–282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Martijnse IS, Dudink RL, West NP, Wasowicz D, Nieuwenhuijzen GA, van Lijnschoten I, Martijn H, Lemmens VE, van de Velde CJ, Nagtegaal ID, Quirke P, Rutten HJ (2012) Focus on extralevator perineal dissection in supine position for low rectal cancer has led to better quality of surgery and oncologic outcome. Ann Surg Oncol 19(3):786–793

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Vaughan-Shaw PG, Cheung T, Knight JS, Nichols PH, Pilkington SA, Mirnezami AH (2012) 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. Technol Coloproctol 16(5):355–362

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. West NP, Anderin C, Smith KJ, Holm T, Quirke P (2010) Multicentre experience with extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer. Br J Surg 97(4):588–599

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Adam IJ, Mohamdee MO, Martin IG, Scott N, Finan PJ, Johnston D, Dixon MF, Quirke P (1994) Role of circumferential margin involvement in the local recurrence of rectal cancer. Lancet 344(8924):707–711

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283(15):2008–2012

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Clarke M, Horton R (2001) Bringing it all together: Lancet-Cochrane collaborate on systematic reviews. Lancet 357(9270):1728

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Parmar MK, Torri V, Stewart L (1998) Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Stat Med 17(24):2815–2834

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mantel N, Haenszel W (1959) Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 22(4):719–748

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sarpel U, Hefti MM, Wisnievsky JP, Roayaie S, Schwartz ME, Labow DM (2009) Outcome for patients treated with laparoscopic versus open resection of hepatocellular carcinoma: case-matched analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 16(6):1572–1577

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7(3):177–188

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Higgins J GS. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series. Chichester: The Cochrane Collaboration and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 2008

  21. Stang A (2010) Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 25(9):603–605

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Stelzner S, Hellmich G, Schubert C, Puffer E, Haroske G, Witzigmann H (2011) Short-term outcome of extra-levator abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 26(7):919–925

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Asplund D, Haglind E, Angenete E (2012) Outcome of extralevator abdominoperineal excision compared with standard surgery: results from a single centre. Colorectal Dis 14(10):1191–1196

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Barker JA (2012) Blackmore AE. Owen RP, Rate A. Prone cylindrical abdominoperineal resection with subsequent rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap reconstruction performed by a colorectal surgeon. Int J Colorectal Dis

    Google Scholar 

  25. Porter GA, O'Keefe GE, Yakimets WW (1996) Inadvertent perforation of the rectum during abdominoperineal resection. Am J Surg 172(4):324–327

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Havenga K, Enker WE, McDermott K, Cohen AM, Minsky BD, Guillem J (1996) Male and female sexual and urinary function after total mesorectal excision with autonomic nerve preservation for carcinoma of the rectum. J Am Coll Surg 182(6):495–502

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Eveno C, Lamblin A, Mariette C, Pocard M (2010) Sexual and urinary dysfunction after proctectomy for rectal cancer. J Visc Surg 147(1):e21–e30

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. El-Gazzaz G, Kiran RP, Lavery I (2009) Wound complications in rectal cancer patients undergoing primary closure of the perineal wound after abdominoperineal resection. Dis Colon Rectum 52(12):1962–1966

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Eriksen MT, Wibe A, Syse A, Haffner J, Wiig JN (2004) Inadvertent perforation during rectal cancer resection in Norway. Br J Surg 91(2):210–216

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bernstein TE, Endreseth BH, Romundstad P, Wibe A (2009) Circumferential resection margin as a prognostic factor in rectal cancer. Br J Surg 96(11):1348–1357

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kressner U, Graf W, Mahteme H, Pahlman L, Glimelius B (2002) Septic complications and prognosis after surgery for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 45(3):316–321

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was financially supported by the Programme of Introducing Talents of Discipline to Universities (no. B12003).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Colorectal and Anal Surgery, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, 26 Yuancun Erheng Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510655, People’s Republic of China

    Hui-Chuan Yu, Hui Peng, Xiao-Sheng He & Ri-Sheng Zhao

Authors
  1. Hui-Chuan Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hui Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiao-Sheng He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ri-Sheng Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hui Peng.

Additional information

Hui-Chuan Yu and Hui Peng contributed equally to this work.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 14 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yu, HC., Peng, H., He, XS. et al. 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 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-013-1793-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-013-1793-7

Keyword

Search

Navigation