Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Extralevator versus standard abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Techniques in Coloproctology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) probably improves the oncological quality of low rectal cancer surgery, as compared to standard abdominoperineal excision (SAPE), possibly due to lower rates of accidental perioperative bowel perforations and lower rates of circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity. The procedure may however, increase post-operative morbidity. The aim of this paper was to compare outcomes of SAPE and ELAPE for carcinoma of the lower rectum.

Methods

This is a retrospective study of patients operated on at a single colorectal unit, in a provincial hospital in Denmark. Consecutive patients undergoing abdominoperineal excision (APE) between 2006 and 2012 were included. During this period, a gradual paradigm shift occurred towards adopting ELAPE, although both procedures were performed without a clear selection strategy. We reviewed medical records, including the pathological and radiological data. Patients were divided into two groups, SAPE and ELAPE. Main endpoints were rates of positive CRM, intraoperative bowel perforations, local recurrence rate, length of hospital stay, operative time, and perineal wound-related complications.

Results

One hundred and seven patients were included (median age 68 years, range 42–88 years; men = 72). The SAPE group included 39 patients and the ELAPE group 68 patients. Intraoperative bowel perforation was significantly lower in the ELAPE group (20.5 % SAPE vs 7.4 % ELAPE, p = 0.045). The rate of positive CRM was not significantly different (2.6 % SAPE vs 7.4 % ELAPE, p = 0.413). The local recurrence rate was not statistically significant (17.9 % SAPE vs 13.2 % ELAPE, p = 0.513). In the ELAPE group, operative time and hospital stay were significantly longer than the SAPE group (p = 0.001 and p = 0.021, respectively).

Conclusions

We found low rates of positive CRM after APE compared with the literature. ELAPE did not reduce these rates, and although the local recurrence rate was lower, this did not reach statistical significance. ELAPE has significantly reduced the rate of intraoperative bowel perforation and can optimize low rectal cancer surgery in selected patients. We found no significant differences between the two procedures regarding wound-related complications. A tailored approach and a larger trial with longer follow-up are needed to evaluate long-term results.

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. Heald RJ, Husband EM, Ryall RD (1982) The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery—the clue to pelvic recurrence? Br J Surg 69:613–616

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. MacFarlane JK, Ryall RD, Heald RJ (1993) Mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet 341:457–460

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wibe A, Møller B, Norstein J et al (2002) A national strategic change in treatment policy for rectal cancer—implementation of total mesorectal excision as routine treatment in Norway. A national audit. Dis Colon Rectum 45:857–866

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bülow S, Christensen IJ, Harling H, Danish TME Study Group, RANX05 Colorectal Cancer Study Group et al (2003) Recurrence and survival after mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 90:974–980

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Heald RJ, Smedh RK, Kald A, Sexton R, Moran BJ (1997) Abdominoperineal excision of the rectum—an endangered operation. Norman Nigro Lectureship. Dis Colon Rectum 40:747–751

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Marr R, Birbeck K, Garvican J et al (2005) The modern abdominoperineal excision: the next challenge after total mesorectal excision. Ann Surg 242:74–82

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nagtegaal ID, Quirke P (2008) What is the role for the circumferential margin in the modern treatment of rectal cancer? J Clin Oncol 26:303–312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. den Dulk M, Putter H, Collette L et al (2009) 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 45:1175–1183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bülow S, Christensen IJ, Iversen LH, Harling H, Danish Colorectal Cancer Group (2011) Intra-operative perforation is an important predictor of local recurrence and impaired survival after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 13:1256–1264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Krishna A, Rickard MJ, Keshava A, Dent OF, Chapuis PH (2013) A comparison of published rates of resection margin involvement and intra-operative perforation between standard and ‘cylindrical’ abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 15:57–65

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Group. GotDC. http://dccg.dk/retningslinjer/20131019/2013_NeoAdjRectum.pdf

  14. Wille-Jørgensen P, Sparre P, Glenthøj A et al (2013) Result of the implementation of multidisciplinary teams in rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 15:410–413

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Quirke P, Dixon MF (1988) The prediction of local recurrence in rectal adenocarcinoma by histopathological examination. Int J Colorectal Dis 3:127–131

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Adam IJ, Mohamdee MO, Martin IG et al (1994) Role of circumferential margin involvement in the local recurrence of rectal cancer. Lancet 344:707–711

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Anderin C, Martling A, Lagergren J, Ljung A, Holm T (2012) Short-term outcome after gluteus maximus myocutaneous flap reconstruction of the pelvic floor following extra-levator abdominoperineal excision of the rectum. Colorectal Dis 14:1060–1064

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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 21:361–364

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Annual report of the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group (2012). http://dccg.dk/pdf/Aarsrapport_2012_dccg.pdf

  20. Wille-Jørgensen P, Bülow S (2009) The multidisciplinary team conference in rectal cancer—a step forward. Colorectal Dis 11:231–232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Annual report of the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group (2009). http://dccg.dk/03_Publikation/01_ret_pdf/Retningslinier2009p.pdf

  22. Quirke P (2003) Training and quality assurance for rectal cancer: 20 years of data is enough. Lancet Oncol 4:695–702

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Quirke P, Steele R, Monson J, MRC CR07, NCIC-CTG CO16 Trial Investigators, NCRI Colorectal Cancer Study Group 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 Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Huang AZH, 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 

  26. Asplund D, Haglind E, Angenete E (2012) Outcome of extended abdominoperineal resection compared to standard surgical technique. Results from a single center in Sweden. Colorectal Dis 14:1191–1196

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 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 

  28. Yu HC, Peng H, He XS, Zhao RS (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 

  29. 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 204:274–282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 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 

  31. Eriksen MT, Wibe A, Syse A, Haffner J, Wiig JN; Norwegian Rectal Cancer Group (2004) Inadvertent perforation during rectal cancer resection in Norway. Br J Surg 91:210–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 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 26:919–925

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bülow S, Christensen IJ, Iversen LH, Harling H, Danish Colorectal Cancer Group (2011) Intra-operative perforation is an important predictor of local recurrence and impaired survival after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 13:1256–1264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Porter GA, O’LKeefe GE, Yakimets WW (1996) Inadvertent perforation of the rectum during abdominoperineal resection. Am J Surg 172:324–327

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Salerno G, Chandler I, Wotherspoon A, Thomas K, Moran B, Brown G (2008) Sites of surgical wasting in the abdominoperineal specimen. Br J Surg 9:1147–1154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. How P, West NP, Brown G (2014) An MRI-based assessment of standard and extralevator abdominoperineal excision specimens: time for a patient tailored approach? Ann Surg Oncol 21:822–828

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Moore TJ, Moran BJ (2012) Precision surgery, precision terminology: the origins and meaning of ELAPE. Colorectal Dis 14:1173–1174

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Mathis KL, Larson DW, Dozois EJ et al (2012) Outcomes following surgery without radiotherapy for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 99:137–143

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. de Campos-Lobato LF, Stocchi L, Dietz DW, Lavery IC, Fazio VW, Kalady MF (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 

  40. Holm T (2014) Controversies in abdominoperineal excision. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 23:93–111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Hoare D, Maw A, Gollins S (2013) Does pre-operative chemoradiotherapy cause wound complications after abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer? An observational study. Int J Surg 11:395–399

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 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 

  43. Kipling SL, Young K, Foster JD et al (2014) Laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision of the rectum: short-term outcomes of a prospective case series. Tech Coloproctol 18:445–451

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Slagelse Hospital, Ingemannsvej 18, 4200, Slagelse, Denmark

    S. K. Perdawood & T. Lund

Authors
  1. S. K. Perdawood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. Lund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. K. Perdawood.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Perdawood, S.K., Lund, T. Extralevator versus standard abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer. Tech Coloproctol 19, 145–152 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-014-1243-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-014-1243-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation