Long-Term Outcomes After Extra-Levator Versus Conventional Abdominoperineal Excision for Low Rectal Cancer

PurposeExtralevator (ELAPE) and abdominoperineal excision (APE) are two major surgical approaches for low rectal cancer patients. Although excellent short-term efficacy is achieved in patients undergoing ELAPE, the long-term benefits have not been established. In this study we compared the survival outcomes in low rectal cancer patients who underwent ELAPE and APE.MethodsOne hundred fourteen patients were enrolled, including 68 in the ELAPE group and 46 in the APE group at the Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University from January 2011 to December 2018. The baseline characteristics, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) were calculated and compared between the two groups.ResultsDemographics and tumor stage were comparable between the two groups. The 5-year PFS (67.2 per cent versus 38.6 per cent, log-rank P = 0.008) and LRFS (87.0 per cent versus 62.3 per cent, log-rank P = 0.047) were significantly improved in the ELAPE group compared to the APE group, and the survival advantage was especially reflected in patients with pT3 tumors, positive lymph nodes or even those who have not received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Multivariate analysis showed that APE was an independent risk factor for OS (hazard ratio 3.000, 95 per cent c.i. 1.171 to 4.970, P = 0.004) and PFS (hazard ratio 2.730, 95 per cent c.i. 1.506 to 4.984, P = 0.001).Conclusion Compared with APE, ELAPE improved long-term outcomes for low rectal cancer patients, especially among patients with pT3 tumors, positive lymph nodes or those without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

Postoperative MRI Findings Following Conventional and Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision in Low Rectal Cancer

Aim: The disparity in outcomes for low rectal cancer may reflect differences in operative approach and quality. The extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) was developed to reduce margin involvement in low rectal cancers by widening the excision of the conventional abdominoperineal excision (c-APE) to include the posterior pelvic diaphragm. This study aimed to determine the prevalence and localization of inadvertent residual pelvic diaphragm on postoperative MRI after intended ELAPE and c-APE.Methods: A total of 147 patients treated with c-APE or ELAPE for rectal cancer were included. Postoperative MRI was performed on 51% of the cohort (n = 75) and evaluated with regard to the residual pelvic diaphragm by a radiologist trained in pelvic MRI. Patient records, histopathological reports, and standardized photographs were assessed. Pathology and MRI findings were evaluated independently in a blinded fashion. Additionally, preoperative MRIs were evaluated for possible risk factors for margin involvement.Results: Magnetic resonance imaging-detected residual pelvic diaphragm was identified in 45 (75.4%) of 61 patients who underwent ELAPE and in 14 (100%) of 14 patients who underwent c-APE. An increased risk of margin involvement was observed in anteriorly oriented tumors with 16 (22%) of 73 anteriorly oriented tumors presenting with margin involvement vs. 7 (9%) of 74 non-anteriorly oriented tumors (p = 0.038).Conclusion: Residual pelvic diaphragm following abdominoperineal excision can be depicted by postoperative MRI. Inadvertent residual pelvic diaphragm (RPD) was commonly found in the series of patients treated with the ELAPE technique. Anterior tumor orientation was a risk factor for circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement regardless of surgical approach.

Central perforated VRAM flap and neurostimulated levator augmentation for functional and aesthetical reconstruction after abdominoperineal excision in cancer

BACKGROUND: Preservation of quality of life regarding fecal continence after abdominoperineal excision (APE) in cancer is challenging. Simultaneous soft tissue coverage and restoration of continence mechanism can be provided through an interdisciplinary collaboration of colorectal and plastic reconstructive surgery. OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of surgical procedure and outcome combining soft tissue reconstruction using a central perforated vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap (VRAM), implementing a perineostoma and restoring anorectal angle augmenting the levator ani by neurostimulated graciloplasty. METHODS: 14 Patients underwent APE due to cancer. In all patients coverage was achieved by pedicled VRAM and simultaneous pull-through descendostomy (perineostoma). 10 of those patients received a levator augmentation additionally. Postoperative complications, functional measures of continence as well as quality of life were obtained. RESULTS: Perineal minor complication rate was 43% without need of surgical intervention. All but one VRAM survived. Continence measures and disease specific life quality showed a good preservation of continence in most patients. CONCLUSION: The results present a complex therapy option accomplished by a collaboration of two highly specialized partners (visceral and plastic surgery) after total loss of the sphincter function and consecutive fecal insufficiency after APE.

Retrospective Analysis of Risk Factors for Postoperative Perineal Hernia After Endoscopic Abdominoperineal Excision for Rectal Cancer

Background: In contrast to open-surgery abdominoperineal excision (APE) for rectal cancer, postoperative perineal hernia (PPH) is reported to increase after extralevator APE and endoscopic surgery. In this study, therefore, we aimed to determine the risk factors for PPH after endoscopic APE.Methods: A total 73 patients who underwent endoscopic APE for lower rectal cancer were collected from January 2009 to March 2020, and the risk factors for PPH were analyzed retrospectively.Results: Nineteen patients (26%) developed PPH after endoscopic APE, and the diagnosis of PPH was made at 9–393 days (median: 183 days) after initial surgery. Logistic regression analysis showed that absence of pelvic peritoneal closure alone increased the incidence of PPH significantly (odds ratio; 13.76, 95% confidence interval; 1.48–1884.84, p = 0.004).Conclusions: Pelvic peritoneal closure should be performed when possible after endoscopic APE to prevent PPH.

SP1.1.2Perineal reconstruction following extralevator abdominoperineal excision of rectum - Is IGAP flap a feasible option

Aim Extra-levator abdomino-perineal excision for low rectal cancer has been shown to reduce tumor perfoation rates and incidence of local recurrence when compared to a conventional abdominoperineal excision. This is however associated with increased wound complications. This study was done to evaluate the feasibility of an inferior gluteal artery flap in patients undergoing ELAPE. Methods This was retrospective analysis was done at tertiary centre for all patients who underwent an ELAPE over a period of 7 years (December 2013 to July 2020). Patient demographic, relevant co morbidities and the data regarding chemotherapy and radiotherapy were analysed. Results A Total of 33 patients underwent ELAPE with an IGAP flap wound reconstruction. The mean age was 68 (44-86) with a mean BMI of 27 (25-45). 26 patients out of 33 (82%) received neoadjuvant treatment for cancer. The mean LoS was 11 days (6-31). The perineal wound complications were graded as per Clavein Dindo classification and 56 % had no wound complications recorded. 07/33 had Grade I and 06/33 had Grade II complications. Conclusion IGAP flap closure for perineal defects, does offer the advantage of compatibility with both minimally invasive and open procedures and the avoidance of using irradiated tissue. This case series does demonstrate the feasibility of IGAP flaps as viable option to cover perineal defects following radical low rectal cancer surgery with low morbidity.

618 Management of Rectal Cancer in England And Wales. Is the Rate of Abdominoperineal Excision of Rectum Associated with The Pre-Operative Radiotherapy Rates?

Aim Rectal cancer treatment has improved over the years, but variations in practice remain. Abdominoperineal resection (APER) is associated with significant morbidity and pre-operative radiotherapy (RT) is only recommended for advanced rectal cancer. As such, APER and RT should be reserved for patients with an appropriate clinical need. The aim of the study is to evaluate the association between the rates of APER and RT, and whether any other factors are associated. Method Data on rectal cancer cases was extracted from National Bowel Cancer Audit 2019. Primary outcomes were: APER rate, RT rate. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was calculated. The means for APER and pre-operative radiotherapy were plotted on a four-quadrant matrix. The differences were analysed using Mann-Whitney U and Student T-test. Results 3,764 patients were included. A mean of 25% (95%CI: 10.3-14.9%) underwent APER and an average of 34% (95%CI: 30.5-36.8%) received RT. There was a weak positive correlation between rates of APER and RT (r = 0.356, p < 0.001). 43 (37%) trusts had proportions of both APER and RT below the overall mean, whilst 30 (26%) had both proportions above. No significant differences were found when comparing other variables between the high to low-rate trusts (p > 0.05). Conclusions There is a weak positive correlation between the proportion of rectal cancer patients undergoing APER and the proportion receiving RT in trusts across England and Wales. It is unknown whether this finding has a clinical significance and further analysis on trust/surgeon performance and patient demographics is needed, allowing for prevention strategies to be implemented.