Long-term Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Abdominoperineal Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Single Specialized Center Experience.
Adenocarcinoma
/ pathology
Colectomy
/ adverse effects
Disease-Free Survival
Female
Humans
Laparoscopy
/ adverse effects
Length of Stay
/ statistics & numerical data
Long Term Adverse Effects
/ epidemiology
Lymph Node Excision
/ methods
Male
Margins of Excision
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Staging
Operative Time
Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care
Postoperative Complications
/ diagnosis
Proctectomy
/ adverse effects
Rectal Neoplasms
/ pathology
Journal
Diseases of the colon and rectum
ISSN: 1530-0358
Titre abrégé: Dis Colon Rectum
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372764
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 03 2022
01 03 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
17
11
2021
medline:
3
3
2022
entrez:
16
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Randomized studies have validated laparoscopic proctectomy for the treatment of rectal cancer as noninferior to an open proctectomy, but most of those studies have included sphincter-preserving resections along with abdominoperineal resection. This study aimed to compare perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes between minimally invasive and open abdominoperineal resection. This study is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database. The study was conducted in a single specialized colorectal surgery department. All patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection for primary rectal cancer between 2000 and 2016 were included. The primary outcomes measured were the perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes. We included 452 patients, 372 in the open group and 80 in the minimally invasive group, with a median follow-up time of 74 months. There were significant differences between the groups in terms of neoadjuvant radiation treatment (67.5% of the open versus 81.3% of the minimally invasive group, p = 0.01), operative time (mean of 200 minutes versus 287 minutes, p < 0.0001), and mean length of stay (9.5 days versus 6.6 days, p < 0.0001). Overall complication rates were similar between the groups (34.5% versus 27.5%, p = 0.177). There were no significant differences in the mean number of lymph nodes harvested (21.7 versus 22.2 nodes, p = 0.7), circumferential radial margins (1.48 cm versus 1.37 cm, p = 0.4), or in the rate of involved radial margins (10.8% versus 6.3%, p = 0.37). Five-year overall survival was 70% in the open group versus 80% in the minimally invasive group (p = 0.344), whereas the 5-year disease-free survival rate in the open group was 63.2% versus 77.6% in the minimally invasive group (p = 0.09). This study was limited because it describes a single referral institution experience. Although both approaches have similar perioperative outcomes, the minimally invasive approach benefits the patients with a shorter length of stay and a lower risk for surgical wound infections. Both approaches yield similar oncological technical quality in terms of the lymph nodes harvested and margins status, and they have comparable long-term oncological outcomes. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B754.RESULTADOS A LARGO PLAZO DE LA RESECCIÓN ABDOMINOPERINEAL MÍNIMAMENTE INVASIVA VERSUS ABIERTA PARA EL CÁNCER DE RECTO: EXPERIENCIA DE UN SOLO CENTRO ESPECIALIZADOANTECEDENTES:Estudios aleatorizados han validado la proctectomía laparoscópica para el tratamiento del cáncer de recto igual a la proctectomía abierta, pero la mayoría de esos estudios han incluido resecciones con preservación del esfínter junto con resección abdominoperineal.OBJETIVO:Comparar los resultados oncológicos perioperatorios y a largo plazo entre la resección abdominoperineal abierta y mínimamente invasiva.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo de una base de datos mantenida de forma prospectiva.ENTORNO CLINICO:Servicio único especializado en cirugía colorrectal.PACIENTES:Todos los pacientes que se sometieron a resección abdominoperineal por cáncer de recto primario entre 2000 y 2016.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:Resultados oncológicos perioperatorios y a largo plazo.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron 452 pacientes, 372 en el grupo abierto y 80 en el grupo mínimamente invasivo, con una mediana de seguimiento de 74 meses. Hubo diferencias significativas entre los grupos en términos de tratamiento con radiación neoadyuvante (67,5% del grupo abierto versus 81,3% del grupo mínimamente invasivo, p = 0,01), tiempo operatorio (media de 200 minutos versus 287 minutos, p < 0,0001) y la duración media de la estancia (9,5 días frente a 6,6 días, p < 0,0001). Las tasas generales de complicaciones fueron similares entre los grupos (34,5% versus 27,5%, p = 0,177). No hubo diferencias significativas en el número medio de ganglios linfáticos extraídos (21,7 versus 22,2 ganglios, p = 0,7), márgenes radiales circunferenciales (1,48 cm y 1,37 cm, p = 0,4), ni en la tasa de márgenes radiales afectados (10,8 cm). % versus 6,3%, p = 0,37). La supervivencia general a 5 años fue del 70% en el grupo abierto frente al 80% en el grupo mínimamente invasivo (p = 0,344), mientras que la tasa de supervivencia libre de enfermedad a 5 años en el grupo abierto fue del 63,2% frente al 77,6% en el grupo mínimamente invasivo (p = 0,09).LIMITACIONES:Experiencia en una institución de referencia única.CONCLUSIONES:Si bien ambos tienen resultados perioperatorios similares, el enfoque mínimamente invasivo, beneficia a los pacientes con estadía más corta y menor riesgo de infecciones de la herida quirúrgica. Ambos enfoques, producen una calidad técnica oncológica similar en términos de ganglios linfáticos extraídos y estado de los márgenes, y tienen resultados oncológicos comparables a largo plazo. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B754. (Traducción - Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Randomized studies have validated laparoscopic proctectomy for the treatment of rectal cancer as noninferior to an open proctectomy, but most of those studies have included sphincter-preserving resections along with abdominoperineal resection.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to compare perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes between minimally invasive and open abdominoperineal resection.
DESIGN
This study is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database.
SETTINGS
The study was conducted in a single specialized colorectal surgery department.
PATIENTS
All patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection for primary rectal cancer between 2000 and 2016 were included.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
The primary outcomes measured were the perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes.
RESULTS
We included 452 patients, 372 in the open group and 80 in the minimally invasive group, with a median follow-up time of 74 months. There were significant differences between the groups in terms of neoadjuvant radiation treatment (67.5% of the open versus 81.3% of the minimally invasive group, p = 0.01), operative time (mean of 200 minutes versus 287 minutes, p < 0.0001), and mean length of stay (9.5 days versus 6.6 days, p < 0.0001). Overall complication rates were similar between the groups (34.5% versus 27.5%, p = 0.177). There were no significant differences in the mean number of lymph nodes harvested (21.7 versus 22.2 nodes, p = 0.7), circumferential radial margins (1.48 cm versus 1.37 cm, p = 0.4), or in the rate of involved radial margins (10.8% versus 6.3%, p = 0.37). Five-year overall survival was 70% in the open group versus 80% in the minimally invasive group (p = 0.344), whereas the 5-year disease-free survival rate in the open group was 63.2% versus 77.6% in the minimally invasive group (p = 0.09).
LIMITATIONS
This study was limited because it describes a single referral institution experience.
CONCLUSIONS
Although both approaches have similar perioperative outcomes, the minimally invasive approach benefits the patients with a shorter length of stay and a lower risk for surgical wound infections. Both approaches yield similar oncological technical quality in terms of the lymph nodes harvested and margins status, and they have comparable long-term oncological outcomes. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B754.RESULTADOS A LARGO PLAZO DE LA RESECCIÓN ABDOMINOPERINEAL MÍNIMAMENTE INVASIVA VERSUS ABIERTA PARA EL CÁNCER DE RECTO: EXPERIENCIA DE UN SOLO CENTRO ESPECIALIZADOANTECEDENTES:Estudios aleatorizados han validado la proctectomía laparoscópica para el tratamiento del cáncer de recto igual a la proctectomía abierta, pero la mayoría de esos estudios han incluido resecciones con preservación del esfínter junto con resección abdominoperineal.OBJETIVO:Comparar los resultados oncológicos perioperatorios y a largo plazo entre la resección abdominoperineal abierta y mínimamente invasiva.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo de una base de datos mantenida de forma prospectiva.ENTORNO CLINICO:Servicio único especializado en cirugía colorrectal.PACIENTES:Todos los pacientes que se sometieron a resección abdominoperineal por cáncer de recto primario entre 2000 y 2016.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:Resultados oncológicos perioperatorios y a largo plazo.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron 452 pacientes, 372 en el grupo abierto y 80 en el grupo mínimamente invasivo, con una mediana de seguimiento de 74 meses. Hubo diferencias significativas entre los grupos en términos de tratamiento con radiación neoadyuvante (67,5% del grupo abierto versus 81,3% del grupo mínimamente invasivo, p = 0,01), tiempo operatorio (media de 200 minutos versus 287 minutos, p < 0,0001) y la duración media de la estancia (9,5 días frente a 6,6 días, p < 0,0001). Las tasas generales de complicaciones fueron similares entre los grupos (34,5% versus 27,5%, p = 0,177). No hubo diferencias significativas en el número medio de ganglios linfáticos extraídos (21,7 versus 22,2 ganglios, p = 0,7), márgenes radiales circunferenciales (1,48 cm y 1,37 cm, p = 0,4), ni en la tasa de márgenes radiales afectados (10,8 cm). % versus 6,3%, p = 0,37). La supervivencia general a 5 años fue del 70% en el grupo abierto frente al 80% en el grupo mínimamente invasivo (p = 0,344), mientras que la tasa de supervivencia libre de enfermedad a 5 años en el grupo abierto fue del 63,2% frente al 77,6% en el grupo mínimamente invasivo (p = 0,09).LIMITACIONES:Experiencia en una institución de referencia única.CONCLUSIONES:Si bien ambos tienen resultados perioperatorios similares, el enfoque mínimamente invasivo, beneficia a los pacientes con estadía más corta y menor riesgo de infecciones de la herida quirúrgica. Ambos enfoques, producen una calidad técnica oncológica similar en términos de ganglios linfáticos extraídos y estado de los márgenes, y tienen resultados oncológicos comparables a largo plazo. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B754. (Traducción - Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy).
Identifiants
pubmed: 34784318
doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000002067
pii: 00003453-202203000-00011
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
361-372Informations de copyright
Copyright © The ASCRS 2021.
Références
Lindsetmo RO, Joh YG, Delaney CP. Surgical treatment for rectal cancer: an international perspective on what the medical gastroenterologist needs to know. World J Gastroenterol. 2008;14:3281–3289.
Miles WE. 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. 1971;21:361–364.
Tilney HS, Tekkis PP. Extending the horizons of restorative rectal surgery: intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 2008;10:3–15; discussion 15.
Ptok H, Marusch F, Kuhn R, Gastinger I, Lippert H. Influence of hospital volume on the frequency of abdominoperineal resection and long-term oncological outcomes in low rectal cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007;33:854–861.
Weiser MR, Quah HM, Shia J, et al. Sphincter preservation in low rectal cancer is facilitated by preoperative chemoradiation and intersphincteric dissection. Ann Surg. 2009;249:236–242.
Murrell ZA, Dixon MR, Vargas H, Arnell TD, Kumar R, Stamos MJ. Contemporary indications for and early outcomes of abdominoperineal resection. Am Surg. 2005;71:837–840.
Stelzner S, Koehler C, Stelzer J, Sims A, Witzigmann H. Extended abdominoperineal excision vs. standard abdominoperineal excision in rectal cancer–a systematic overview. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2011;26:1227–1240.
Marr R, Birbeck K, Garvican J, et al. The modern abdominoperineal excision: the next challenge after total mesorectal excision. Ann Surg. 2005;242:74–82.
Holm T, Ljung A, Häggmark T, Jurell G, Lagergren J. Extended abdominoperineal resection with gluteus maximus flap reconstruction of the pelvic floor for rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2007;94:232–238.
Reshef A, Lavery I, Kiran RP. Factors associated with oncologic outcomes after abdominoperineal resection compared with restorative resection for low rectal cancer: patient- and tumor-related or technical factors only? Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55:51–58.
Wibe A, Syse A, Andersen E, Tretli S, Myrvold HE, Søreide O; Norwegian Rectal Cancer Group. Oncological outcomes after total mesorectal excision for cure for cancer of the lower rectum: anterior vs. abdominoperineal resection. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47:48–58.
Kim JC, Yu CS, Lim SB, Kim CW, Kim JH, Kim TW. Abdominoperineal resection and low anterior resection: comparison of long-term oncologic outcome in matched patients with lower rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2013;28:493–501.
Nagtegaal ID, van de Velde CJ, Marijnen CA, van Krieken JH, Quirke P; Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group; Pathology Review Committee. Low rectal cancer: a call for a change of approach in abdominoperineal resection. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:9257–9264.
Leroy J, Jamali F, Forbes L, et al. Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer surgery: long-term outcomes. Surg Endosc. 2004;18:281–289.
Staudacher C, Di Palo S, Tamburini A, Vignali A, Orsenigo E. Total mesorectal excision (TME) with laparoscopic approach: 226 consecutive cases. Surg Oncol. 2007; 16(suppl 1):S113–S116.
Kim SH, Park IJ, Joh YG, Hahn KY. Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: a prospective analysis of thirty-month follow-up outcomes in 312 patients. Surg Endosc. 2006;20:1197–1202.
Green BL, Marshall HC, Collinson F, et al. Long-term follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of conventional versus laparoscopically assisted resection in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2013;100:75–82.
Jeong SY, Park JW, Nam BH, et al. Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): survival outcomes of an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:767–774.
van der Pas MH, Haglind E, Cuesta MA, et al.; COlorectal cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection II (COLOR II) Study Group. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:210–218.
Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Abis GA, et al.; COLOR II Study Group. A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1324–1332.
Liang JT, Cheng JC, Huang KC, Lai HS, Sun CT. Comparison of tumor recurrence between laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with sphincter preservation and laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:3452–3464.
Kim JS, Hur H, Kim NK, et al. Oncologic outcomes after radical surgery following preoperative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced lower rectal cancer: abdominoperineal resection versus sphincter-preserving procedure. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:1266–1273.
Darzi A, Lewis C, Menzies-Gow N, Guillou PJ, Monson JR. Laparoscopic abdominoperineal excision of the rectum. Surg Endosc. 1995;9:414–417.
Baek SK, Carmichael JC, Pigazzi A. Robotic surgery: colon and rectum. Cancer J. 2013;19:140–146.
Marecik SJ, Zawadzki M, Desouza AL, Park JJ, Abcarian H, Prasad LM. Robotic cylindrical abdominoperineal resection with transabdominal levator transection. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54:1320–1325.
Edge SB, Compton CC. The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:1471–1474.
Arezzo A, Passera R, Scozzari G, Verra M, Morino M. Laparoscopy for extraperitoneal rectal cancer reduces short-term morbidity: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. United European Gastroenterol J. 2013;1:32–47.
Arezzo A, Passera R, Salvai A, et al. Laparoscopy for rectal cancer is oncologically adequate: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:334–348.
Nagtegaal ID, Quirke P. What is the role for the circumferential margin in the modern treatment of rectal cancer? J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:303–312.
Raftopoulos I, Reed JF 3rd, Bergamaschi R. Circumferential resection margin involvement after laparoscopic abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14:431–437.
Leung KL, Kwok SP, Lau WY, et al. Laparoscopic-assisted abdominoperineal resection for low rectal adenocarcinoma. Surg Endosc. 2000;14:67–70.
Ng SS, Leung KL, Lee JF, et al. Laparoscopic-assisted versus open abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:2418–2425.
Bullard KM, Trudel JL, Baxter NN, Rothenberger DA. Primary perineal wound closure after preoperative radiotherapy and abdominoperineal resection has a high incidence of wound failure. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48:438–443.
Petrelli N, Rosenfield L, Herrera L, Mittelman A. The morbidity of perineal wounds following abdominoperineal resection for rectal carcinoma. J Surg Oncol. 1986;32:138–140.
Bobkiewicz A, Banasiewicz T, Krokowicz L, et al. Perineal wound healing after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58:e18.
Artioukh DY, Smith RA, Gokul K. Risk factors for impaired healing of the perineal wound after abdominoperineal resection of rectum for carcinoma. Colorectal Dis. 2007;9:362–367.
El-Gazzaz G, Kiran RP, Lavery I. Wound complications in rectal cancer patients undergoing primary closure of the perineal wound after abdominoperineal resection. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52:1962–1966.
Ahmad NZ, Racheva G, Elmusharaf H. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized studies comparing laparoscopic and open abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 2013;15:269–277.
McDonald JR, Renehan AG, O’Dwyer ST, Haboubi NY. Lymph node harvest in colon and rectal cancer: current considerations. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;4:9–19.
Bernstein TE, Endreseth BH, Romundstad P, Wibe A; Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Registry. Improved local control of rectal cancer reduces distant metastases. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14:e668–e678.
Stewart DB, Hollenbeak C, Boltz M. Laparoscopic and open abdominoperineal resection for cancer: how patient selection and complications differ by approach. J Gastrointest Surg. 2011;15:1928–1938.
Numata M, Hasuo K, Hara K, et al. A propensity score-matching analysis comparing the oncological outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with Stage I/II colon and upper rectal cancers. Surg Today. 2015;45:700–707.
Korolija D, Tadić S, Simić D. Extent of oncological resection in laparoscopic vs. open colorectal surgery: meta-analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2003;387:366–371.
Odermatt M, Flashman K, Khan J, Parvaiz A. Laparoscopic-assisted abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer provides a shorter length of hospital stay while not affecting the recurrence or survival: a propensity score-matched analysis. Surg Today. 2016;46:798–806.
Wang YW, Huang LY, Song CL, et al. Laparoscopic vs open abdominoperineal resection in the multimodality management of low rectal cancers. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21:10174–10183.
García-Granero E, Faiz O, Muñoz E, et al. Macroscopic assessment of mesorectal excision in rectal cancer: a useful tool for improving quality control in a multidisciplinary team. Cancer. 2009;115:3400–3411.
Silva-Velazco J, Stocchi L, Valente MA, et al. The relationship between mesorectal grading and oncological outcome in rectal adenocarcinoma. Colorectal Dis. 2019;21:315–325.
Sapci I, Velazco JS, Xhaja X, et al. Factors associated with noncomplete mesorectal excision following surgery for rectal adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg. 2019;217:465–468.