Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

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

Titel

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

Ist Teil von

• World journal of surgery, 2017-08, Vol.41 (8), p.2160-2167

Ort / Verlag

Cham: Springer International Publishing

Erscheinungsjahr

2017

Link zum Volltext

Quelle

SpringerLink (Online service)

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• 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.