Laparoscopic translevator approach to abdominoperineal resection for rectal adenocarcinoma: feasibility and short-term oncologic outcomes

被引:5
作者
Palter, Vanessa N. [1 ]
MacLellan, Steven [1 ,2 ]
Ashamalla, Shady [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Toronto, Dept Surg, 600 Univ Ave,Rm 440, Toronto, ON M5G 1X5, Canada
[2] Humber River Hosp, 2111 Finch Ave West, Toronto, ON M3N 1N1, Canada
[3] Sunnybrook Hlth Sci Ctr, 2075 Bayview Ave,T2015, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada
来源
SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES | 2016年 / 30卷 / 07期
关键词
Laparoscopic abdominal perineal resection; Translevator approach; Perineal wound complications; ANTERIOR RESECTION; PELVIC FLOOR; EXCISION; EXTRALEVATOR; CANCER; RECONSTRUCTION; SUPERIORITY; EXPERIENCE; SURGERY; MARGIN;
D O I
10.1007/s00464-015-4589-8
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
The extra-levator approach to abdominal perineal resection (APR) was developed in order to reduce the rates of positive circumferential resection margin. This approach, however, is associated with significant morbidity. We postulate that a less radical resection of the levators done laparoscopically could significantly decrease the rate of perineal complications while ensuring an oncologically adequate specimen. To date, to our knowledge, there are no reports in the literature describing a laparoscopic translevator approach for APR. The purpose of this study is to describe our initial experience with this approach and assess our short-term oncologic and clinical outcomes. This is a retrospective study of patients who underwent laparoscopic APR with intra-abdominal levator transection for rectal cancer from 2012 to 2014 at a single tertiary care institution. Main outcome measures include: perineal flap rates, post-operative complications, length of stay, distance from tumour to circumferential resection margin, R0 status, and disease recurrence. Data are presented as median (interquartile range) unless otherwise noted. Seventeen cases were identified. Patient age was 61 (range 34-75), and 59 % were male. Pre-operative distance of the tumour from the anal verge was 2.6 cm (0.4-3.9). Post-operative length of stay was 4 (4-6) days. One patient required a perineal flap for reconstruction. Four patients (22 %) had perineal complications (three wound infections and one hernia). No patients reported sexual dysfunction, and one (5 %) developed urinary retention. Five (29 %) patients had a complete pathological response. The circumferential resection margin was 1.5 (0.8-2.5) cm, with no positive margins reported. The number of retrieved lymph nodes was 12 (range 2-30). Follow-up was 9.7 months (range 20 days-23 months), during which one patient developed recurrent disease. This study describes a novel surgical approach to APR that has the potential to both decrease perineal complications and provide excellent oncologic results.
引用
收藏
页码:3001 / 3006
页数:6
相关论文
共 30 条
[11]   Oncological superiority of extralevator abdominoperineal resection over conventional abdominoperineal resection: a meta-analysis [J].
Huang, Ao ;
Zhao, Hongchao ;
Ling, Tianlong ;
Quan, Yingjun ;
Zheng, Minhua ;
Feng, Bo .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2014, 29 (03) :321-327
[12]   Oncological outcome after laparoscopic abdominoperineal excision of the rectum [J].
Jefferies, M. T. ;
Evans, M. D. ;
Hilton, J. ;
Chandrasekaran, T. V. ;
Beynon, J. ;
Khot, U. .
COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2012, 14 (08) :967-971
[13]   Effect of the circumferential resection margin on survival following rectal cancer surgery [J].
Kelly, S. B. ;
Mills, S. J. ;
Bradburn, D. M. ;
Ratcliffe, A. A. ;
Borowski, D. W. .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2011, 98 (04) :573-581
[14]   Minimal-access colorectal surgery is associated with fewer adhesion-related admissions than open surgery [J].
Kennelly, R. P. ;
Rogers, A. C. ;
Winter, D. C. .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2013, 100 (01) :160-166
[15]   ExtraLevatory AbdominoPerineal Excision (ELAPE) Does Not Result in Reduced Rate of Tumor Perforation or Rate of Positive Circumferential Resection Margin A Nationwide Database Study [J].
Klein, Mads ;
Fischer, Anders ;
Rosenberg, Jacob ;
Gogenur, Ismail .
ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2015, 261 (05) :933-938
[16]   Robotic Cylindrical Abdominoperineal Resection With Transabdominal Levator Transection [J].
Marecik, Slawomir J. ;
Zawadzki, Marek ;
deSouza, Ashwin L. ;
Park, John J. ;
Abcarian, Herand ;
Prasad, Leela M. .
DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 2011, 54 (10) :1320-1325
[17]   Perineal Hernia Repair After Abdominoperineal Rectal Excision [J].
Martijnse, I. S. ;
Holman, F. ;
Nieuwenhuijzen, G. A. P. ;
Rutten, H. J. T. ;
Nienhuijs, S. W. .
DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 2012, 55 (01) :90-95
[18]   Low rectal cancer: A call for a change of approach in abdominoperineal resection [J].
Nagtegaal, ID ;
van de Velde, CJH ;
Marijnen, CAM ;
van Krieken, JHJM ;
Quirke, P .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2005, 23 (36) :9257-9264
[19]   Abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer at a specialty center [J].
Nissan, A ;
Guillem, JG ;
Paty, PB ;
Wong, WD ;
Minsky, B ;
Saltz, L ;
Cohen, AM .
DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 2001, 44 (01) :27-35
[20]   Multicentre propensity score-matched analysis of conventional versus extended abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer [J].
Ortiz, H. ;
Ciga, M. A. ;
Armendariz, P. ;
Kreisler, E. ;
Codina-Cazador, A. ;
Gomez-Barbadillo, J. ;
Garcia-Granero, E. ;
Roig, J. V. ;
Biondo, S. .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2014, 101 (07) :874-882