Transperineal minimally invasive APE: preliminary outcomes in a multicenter cohort.
Abdominoperineal excision
ELAPE
Rectal cancer
TME
TpAPE
Transperineal
Journal
Techniques in coloproctology
ISSN: 1128-045X
Titre abrégé: Tech Coloproctol
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 9613614
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2020
08 2020
Historique:
received:
31
12
2019
accepted:
08
05
2020
pubmed:
20
6
2020
medline:
28
4
2021
entrez:
20
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Abdominoperineal excision (APE) for rectal cancer is associated with a relatively high risk of positive margins and postoperative morbidity, particularly related to perineal wound healing problems. It is unknown whether the use of a minimally invasive approach for the perineal part of these procedures can improve postoperative outcomes without oncological compromise. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of minimally invasive transperineal abdominoperineal excision (TpAPE) METHODS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study included all patients having TpAPE for primary low rectal cancer. The primary endpoint was the intraoperative complication rate. Secondary endpoints included major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3), histopathology results, and perineal wound healing. A total of 32 TpAPE procedures were performed in five centers. A bilateral extralevator APE (ELAPE) was performed in 17 patients (53%), a unilateral ELAPE in 7 (22%), and an APE in 8 (25%). Intraoperative complications occurred in five cases (16%) and severe postoperative morbidity in three cases (9%). There were no perioperative deaths. A positive margin (R1) was observed in four patients (13%) and specimen perforation occurred in two (6%). The unilateral extralevator TpAPE group had worse specimen quality and a higher proportion of R1 resections than the bilateral ELAPE or standard APE groups. The rate of uncomplicated perineal wound healing was 53% (n = 17) and three patients (9%) required surgical reintervention. TpAPE seems to be feasible with acceptable perioperative morbidity and a relatively low rate of perineal wound dehiscence, while histopathological outcomes remain suboptimal. Additional evaluation of the viability of this technique is needed in the form of a prospective trial with standardization of the procedure, indication, audit of outcomes and performed by surgeons with vast experience in transanal total mesorectal excision.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Abdominoperineal excision (APE) for rectal cancer is associated with a relatively high risk of positive margins and postoperative morbidity, particularly related to perineal wound healing problems. It is unknown whether the use of a minimally invasive approach for the perineal part of these procedures can improve postoperative outcomes without oncological compromise. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of minimally invasive transperineal abdominoperineal excision (TpAPE) METHODS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study included all patients having TpAPE for primary low rectal cancer. The primary endpoint was the intraoperative complication rate. Secondary endpoints included major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3), histopathology results, and perineal wound healing.
RESULTS
A total of 32 TpAPE procedures were performed in five centers. A bilateral extralevator APE (ELAPE) was performed in 17 patients (53%), a unilateral ELAPE in 7 (22%), and an APE in 8 (25%). Intraoperative complications occurred in five cases (16%) and severe postoperative morbidity in three cases (9%). There were no perioperative deaths. A positive margin (R1) was observed in four patients (13%) and specimen perforation occurred in two (6%). The unilateral extralevator TpAPE group had worse specimen quality and a higher proportion of R1 resections than the bilateral ELAPE or standard APE groups. The rate of uncomplicated perineal wound healing was 53% (n = 17) and three patients (9%) required surgical reintervention.
CONCLUSIONS
TpAPE seems to be feasible with acceptable perioperative morbidity and a relatively low rate of perineal wound dehiscence, while histopathological outcomes remain suboptimal. Additional evaluation of the viability of this technique is needed in the form of a prospective trial with standardization of the procedure, indication, audit of outcomes and performed by surgeons with vast experience in transanal total mesorectal excision.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32556867
doi: 10.1007/s10151-020-02234-5
pii: 10.1007/s10151-020-02234-5
pmc: PMC7359144
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
823-831Références
Heald RJ, Ryall RD (1986) Recurrence and survival after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet 1(8496):1479–1482
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(86)91510-2
Quirke P, Steele R, Monson J, Grieve R, Khanna S, Couture J, O'Callaghan C, Myint AS, Bessell E, Thompson LC, Parmar M, Stephens RJ, Sebag-Montefiore D, Investigators MCN-CCT, Group NCCS (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(9666):821–828. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60485-2
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60485-2
pubmed: 19269520
pmcid: 19269520
Nagtegaal ID, Quirke P (2008) What is the role for the circumferential margin in the modern treatment of rectal cancer? J Clin Oncol 26(2):303–312. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.12.7027
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.12.7027
pubmed: 18182672
pmcid: 18182672
Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Abis GA, Cuesta MA, van der Pas MH, de Lange-de Klerk ES, Lacy AM, Bemelman WA, Andersson J, Angenete E, Rosenberg J, Fuerst A, Haglind E, Group CIS (2015) A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 372(14):1324–1332. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1414882
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1414882
pubmed: 25830422
Taylor FG, Quirke P, Heald RJ, Moran B, Blomqvist L, Swift I, St Rose S, Sebag-Montefiore DJ, Tekkis P, Brown G, Group Ms (2011) One millimetre is the safe cut-off for magnetic resonance imaging prediction of surgical margin status in rectal cancer. Br J Surg 98(6):872–879. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.7458
doi: 10.1002/bjs.7458
pubmed: 21480194
Taylor FG, Quirke P, Heald RJ, Moran B, Blomqvist L, Swift I, Sebag-Montefiore DJ, Tekkis P, Brown G, Group Ms (2011) Preoperative high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging can identify good prognosis stage I, II, and III rectal cancer best managed by surgery alone: a prospective, multicenter European study. Ann Surg 253(4):711–719. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31820b8d52
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31820b8d52
pubmed: 21475011
Salerno G, Sinnatamby C, Branagan G, Daniels IR, Heald RJ, Moran BJ (2006) Defining the rectum: surgically, radiologically and anatomically. Colorectal Dis 8(Suppl 3):5–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2006.01062.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2006.01062.x
pubmed: 16813584
How P, Shihab O, Tekkis P, Brown G, Quirke P, Heald R, Moran B (2011) A systematic review of cancer related patient outcomes after anterior resection and abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer in the total mesorectal excision era. Surg Oncol 20(4):e149–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suronc.2011.05.001
doi: 10.1016/j.suronc.2011.05.001
pubmed: 21632237
Battersby NJ, How P, Moran B, Stelzner S, West NP, Branagan G, Strassburg J, Quirke P, Tekkis P, Pedersen BG, Gudgeon M, Heald B, Brown G, Group MIS (2016) Prospective validation of a low rectal cancer magnetic resonance imaging staging system and development of a local recurrence risk stratification model: the MERCURY II study. Ann Surg 263(4):751–760. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001193
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001193
pubmed: 25822672
Shihab OC, Brown G, Daniels IR, Heald RJ, Quirke P, Moran BJ (2010) Patients with low rectal cancer treated by abdominoperineal excision have worse tumors and higher involved margin rates compared with patients treated by anterior resection. Dis Colon Rectum 53(1):53–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181c70465
doi: 10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181c70465
pubmed: 20010351
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
doi: 10.3322/canjclin.21.6.361
Nagtegaal ID, van de Velde CJ, Marijnen CA, van Krieken JH, Quirke P, Dutch Colorectal Cancer G, Pathology Review C (2005) Low rectal cancer: a call for a change of approach in abdominoperineal resection. J Clin Oncol 23(36):9257–9264. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.02.9231
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.02.9231
pubmed: 16361623
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.5489
doi: 10.1002/bjs.5489
pubmed: 17143848
Stelzner S, Koehler C, Stelzer J, Sims A, Witzigmann H (2011) Extended abdominoperineal excision vs standard abdominoperineal excision in rectal cancer—a systematic overview. Int J Colorectal Dis 26(10):1227–1240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-011-1235-3
doi: 10.1007/s00384-011-1235-3
pubmed: 21603901
Dutch Snapshot Research G (2017) Benchmarking recent national practice in rectal cancer treatment with landmark randomized controlled trials. Colorectal Dis 19(6):O219–O231. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.13644
doi: 10.1111/codi.13644
van Leersum N, Martijnse I, den Dulk M, Kolfschoten N, Le Cessie S, van de Velde C, Tollenaar R, Wouters M, Rutten HJ (2014) Differences in circumferential resection margin involvement after abdominoperineal excision and low anterior resection no longer significant. Ann Surg 259(6):1150–1155. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000000225
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000225
pubmed: 24096756
Holm T (2017) Abdominoperineal excision: technical challenges in optimal surgical and oncological outcomes after abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 30(5):357–367. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1606113
doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1606113
pubmed: 29184471
pmcid: 5703661
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.05.001
doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.05.001
pubmed: 22920402
West NP, Finan PJ, Anderin C, Lindholm J, Holm T, Quirke P (2008) Evidence of the oncologic superiority of cylindrical abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 26(21):3517–3522. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.14.5961
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.5961
pubmed: 18541901
Huang A, Zhao H, Ling T, Quan Y, Zheng M, Feng B (2014) Oncological superiority of extralevator abdominoperineal resection over conventional abdominoperineal resection: a meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 29(3):321–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-013-1794-6
doi: 10.1007/s00384-013-1794-6
pubmed: 24385025
Aggarwal N, Seshadri RA, Arvind A, Jayanand SB (2018) Perineal wound complications following extralevator abdominoperineal excision: experience of a regional cancer center. Indian J Surg Oncol 9(2):211–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13193-018-0741-y
doi: 10.1007/s13193-018-0741-y
pubmed: 29887703
pmcid: 5984859
Blok RD, de Jonge J, de Koning MA, van de Ven AWH, van der Bilt JDW, van Geloven AAW, Hompes R, Bemelman WA, Tanis PJ (2019) Propensity score adjusted comparison of pelviperineal morbidity with and without omentoplasty following abdominoperineal resection for primary rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000001349
doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000001349
pubmed: 31567923
Jones H, Moran B, Crane S, Hompes R, Cunningham C, Group L (2017) The LOREC APE registry: operative technique, oncological outcome and perineal wound healing after abdominoperineal excision. Colorectal Dis 19(2):172–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.13423
doi: 10.1111/codi.13423
pubmed: 27321172
Habr-Gama A, Sao Juliao GP, Mattacheo A, de Campos-Lobato LF, Aleman E, Vailati BB, Gama-Rodrigues J, Perez RO (2017) Extralevator abdominal perineal excision versus standard abdominal perineal excision: impact on quality of the resected specimen and postoperative morbidity. World J Surg 41(8):2160–2167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-3963-1
doi: 10.1007/s00268-017-3963-1
pubmed: 28265736
Yang XY, Wei MT, Yang XT, He YZ, Hao Y, Zhang XB, Deng XB, Wang ZQ, Zhou ZQ (2019) Primary vs myocutaneous flap closure of perineal defects following abdominoperineal resection for colorectal disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis 21(2):138–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.14471
doi: 10.1111/codi.14471
pubmed: 30428157
Musters GD, Sloothaak DA, Roodbeen S, van Geloven AA, Bemelman WA, Tanis PJ (2014) Perineal wound healing after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: a two-centre experience in the era of intensified oncological treatment. Int J Colorectal Dis 29(9):1151–1157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-014-1967-y
doi: 10.1007/s00384-014-1967-y
pubmed: 25064389
Prytz M, Angenete E, Ekelund J, Haglind E (2014) Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for rectal cancer–short-term results from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry. Selective use of ELAPE warranted. Int J Colorectal Dis 29(8):981–987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-014-1932-9
doi: 10.1007/s00384-014-1932-9
pubmed: 24950793
pmcid: 4101252
Peirce C, Martin S (2016) Management of the perineal defect after abdominoperineal excision. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 29(2):160–167. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1580627
doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1580627
pubmed: 27247542
pmcid: 4882185
Bullard KM, Trudel JL, Baxter NN, Rothenberger DA (2005) Primary perineal wound closure after preoperative radiotherapy and abdominoperineal resection has a high incidence of wound failure. Dis Colon Rectum 48(3):438–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-004-0827-1
doi: 10.1007/s10350-004-0827-1
pubmed: 15719190
Foster JD, Tou S, Curtis NJ, Smart NJ, Acheson A, Maxwell-Armstrong C, Watts A, Singh B, Francis NK (2018) Closure of the perineal defect after abdominoperineal excision for rectal adenocarcinoma—ACPGBI Position Statement. Colorectal Dis 20(Suppl 5):5–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.14348
doi: 10.1111/codi.14348
pubmed: 30182511
Yasukawa D, Hori T, Kadokawa Y, Kato S, Aisu Y, Hasegawa S (2018) Trans-perineal minimally invasive surgery during laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6316-8
doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6316-8
pubmed: 29987569
Buchs NC, Kraus R, Mortensen NJ, Cunningham C, George B, Jones O, Guy R, Ashraf S, Lindsey I, Hompes R (2015) Endoscopically assisted extralevator abdominoperineal excision. Colorectal Dis 17(12):O277–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.13144
doi: 10.1111/codi.13144
pubmed: 26454256
Blok RD, Hagemans JAW, Burger JWA, Rothbarth J, van der Bilt JDW, Lapid O, Hompes R, Tanis PJ (2019) Feasibility of a subcutaneous gluteal turnover flap without donor site scar for perineal closure after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer. Tech Coloproctol 23(8):751–759. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-019-02055-1
doi: 10.1007/s10151-019-02055-1
pubmed: 31432332
pmcid: 6736901
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213
doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
Musters GD, Buskens CJ, Bemelman WA, Tanis PJ (2014) Perineal wound healing after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 57(9):1129–1139. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000000182
doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000182
pubmed: 25101610
Blackham AU, Sanchez J, Shibata D (2018) Abdominoperineal excision. In: Chang GJ (ed) Rectal cancer: modern approaches to treatment. Springer, Cham, pp 123–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16384-0_8
doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-16384-0_8
Wiatrek RL, Thomas JS, Papaconstantinou HT (2008) Perineal wound complications after abdominoperineal resection. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 21(1):76–85. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1055325
doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1055325
pubmed: 20011400
pmcid: 2780192
Bianco F, Romano G, Tsarkov P, Stanojevic G, Shroyer K, Giuratrabocchetta S, Bergamaschi R, International Rectal Cancer Study G (2017) Extralevator with vs nonextralevator abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer: the RELAPe randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Dis 19(2):148–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.13436
doi: 10.1111/codi.13436
pubmed: 27369739
Roodbeen SX, de Lacy FB, van Dieren S, Penna M, Ris F, Moran B, Tekkis P, Bemelman WA, Hompes R, International Ta TMERC (2019) Predictive factors and risk model for positive circumferential resection margin rate after transanal total mesorectal excision in 2653 patients with rectal cancer. Ann Surg 270(5):884–891. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003516
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003516
pubmed: 31634183
Koedam TWA, Veltcamp Helbach M, van de Ven PM, Kruyt PM, van Heek NT, Bonjer HJ, Tuynman JB, Sietses C (2018) Transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: evaluation of the learning curve. Tech Coloproctol 22(4):279–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-018-1771-8
doi: 10.1007/s10151-018-1771-8
pubmed: 29569099