-
World Journal of Surgical Oncology Dec 2023Robot-assisted surgery has proven to be a safe and feasible approach for the management of rectal cancer, including abdominoperineal resection (APR). However, it often...
BACKGROUND
Robot-assisted surgery has proven to be a safe and feasible approach for the management of rectal cancer, including abdominoperineal resection (APR). However, it often incurs longer operative times and higher costs. This study aimed to overcome these limitations by adopting a synchronous approach utilizing an optimized team composition.
METHODS
Data on patients who underwent robot-assisted APR at our facility between June 2022 and June 2023 were analyzed. The key points of the optimized approach included the following: At the start of the surgery, the surgeon performed an anococcygeal ligament resection from the perineal side while the bedside assistants set up the ports. Then, through console manipulation, the presacral fascia, elevated by previously placed gauze, was easily and safely incised, providing access to the perineal region.
RESULTS
A total of nine patients were included in this study. The median operation time was 231 min, and the intraoperative blood loss was 170 ml. The operation time was reduced to 167.5 min, and the blood loss was 80.5 ml in cases without a trainee. Surgical site infections, classified as Clavien-Dindo grade II complications, were observed in two cases, but no obvious urinary or erectile dysfunction was observed.
CONCLUSION
The study results indicate that the challenges associated with APR can be efficiently addressed without requiring additional personnel by streamlining team composition and the synchronous approach. This optimization strategy minimizes the need for a larger surgical team, while maximizing the utilization of surgical time and resources.
Topics: Male; Humans; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Proctectomy; Rectal Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome; Laparoscopy
PubMed: 38124092
DOI: 10.1186/s12957-023-03260-x -
The Surgical Clinics of North America Dec 2019Medical treatment remains the mainstay of perianal disease management for CD; however, aggressive surgical management should be considered for severe or recurrent... (Review)
Review
Medical treatment remains the mainstay of perianal disease management for CD; however, aggressive surgical management should be considered for severe or recurrent disease. In all cases of perianal CD, medical and surgical treatments should be used in tandem by a multidisciplinary team. Significant development has been made in the treatment of Crohn's-related fistulas, particularly minimally invasive options with recent clinical trials showing success with mesenchymal stem cell applications. Inevitably, some patients with severe refractory disease may require fecal diversion or proctectomy. When considering reversal of a diverting or end ileostomy, cessation of proctitis is the most important factor.
Topics: Combined Modality Therapy; Crohn Disease; Female; Humans; Intestinal Fistula; Male; Proctectomy; Prognosis; Rectal Diseases; Risk Assessment; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31676054
DOI: 10.1016/j.suc.2019.08.012 -
Colorectal Disease : the Official... Apr 2021
Topics: Humans; Proctectomy; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery
PubMed: 33871160
DOI: 10.1111/codi.15655 -
Colorectal Disease : the Official... Nov 2022
Meta-Analysis
Topics: Humans; Surgical Mesh; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Hernia, Abdominal; Proctectomy; Surgical Flaps
PubMed: 36426619
DOI: 10.1111/codi.16386 -
European Journal of Surgical Oncology :... Sep 2023The primary treatment for locoregional failure following chemoradiotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA) is salvage abdominoperineal resection (APR)....
INTRODUCTION
The primary treatment for locoregional failure following chemoradiotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA) is salvage abdominoperineal resection (APR). However, it is necessary to distinguish between recurrent and persistent diseases because of their varied pathologies. We aimed to clarify the survival outcomes following salvage APR for recurrent and persistent diseases and investigate the significance of salvage APR.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This multicentre retrospective cohort study used clinical data from 47 hospitals. All patients were diagnosed with SCCA and underwent definitive radiotherapy as the primary treatment between 1991 and 2015. Overall survival (OS) was compared between the following cohorts: salvage APR for recurrence, salvage APR for persistence, non-salvage APR for recurrence, and non-salvage APR for persistence.
RESULTS
Five-year OS of salvage APR for recurrence, salvage APR for persistence, non-salvage APR for recurrence, and non-salvage APR for persistence were 75% (46%-90%), 36% (21%-51%), 42% (21%-61%), and 47% (33%-60%), respectively. OS of salvage APR for the recurrent disease was significantly higher than that for persistent disease (p = 0.00597). For recurrent disease, OS following salvage APR was significantly higher than that following non-salvage APR (p = 0.0204); however, for persistent disease, there was no significant difference between salvage and non-salvage APR (p = 0.928).
CONCLUSION
Survival outcomes following salvage APR for persistent disease were significantly worse than that for recurrent disease. Salvage APR did not improve survival outcomes for persistent disease compared to non-salvage APR. These results will elicit a review of persistent disease treatment strategies.
Topics: Humans; Anus Neoplasms; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell; Chemoradiotherapy; Combined Modality Therapy; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Proctectomy; Retrospective Studies; Salvage Therapy
PubMed: 37210274
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2023.05.004 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Jun 2020Since its introduction, extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) in the prone position has gained significant attention and recognition as an important surgical... (Review)
Review
Since its introduction, extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) in the prone position has gained significant attention and recognition as an important surgical procedure for the treatment of advanced low rectal cancer. Most studies suggest that because of adequate resection and precise anatomy, ELAPE could decrease the rate of positive circumferential resection margins, intraoperative perforation, and may further decrease local recurrence rate and improve survival. Some studies show that extensive resection of pelvic floor tissue may increase the incidence of wound complications and urogenital dysfunction. Laparoscopic/robotic ELAPE and trans-perineal minimally invasive approach allow patients to be operated in the lithotomy position, which has advantages of excellent operative view, precise dissection and reduced postoperative complications. Pelvic floor reconstruction with biological mesh could significantly reduce wound complications and the duration of hospitalization. The proposal of individualized ELAPE could further reduce the occurrence of postoperative urogenital dysfunction and chronic perianal pain. The ELAPE procedure emphasizes precise anatomy and conforms to the principle of radical resection of tumors, which is a milestone operation for the treatment of advanced low rectal cancer.
Topics: Abdomen; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Perineum; Proctectomy; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum
PubMed: 32587445
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v26.i22.3012 -
Diseases of the Colon and Rectum Oct 2022Although laparoscopy for abdominoperineal resection has been well defined, the literature lacks comparative studies on robotic abdominoperineal resection. Because...
BACKGROUND
Although laparoscopy for abdominoperineal resection has been well defined, the literature lacks comparative studies on robotic abdominoperineal resection. Because robotic abdominoperineal resections typically do not require splenic mobilization or an anastomosis for reconstruction, the mean console time is expected to be shorter than low anterior resection. We hypothesized that robotic and laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection would provide similar oncologic and financial outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
The study aimed to compare the perioperative, oncologic, and economic outcomes of the robotic and laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection.
DESIGN
This was a retrospective, case-matched patient cohort.
SETTINGS
This study was conducted at a tertiary referral center.
PATIENTS
This study included all patients who underwent either laparoscopic or robotic abdominoperineal resections between January 2008 and April 2017; they were case-matched in a 1:1 ratio based on age ±5 years, BMI ±3 kg/m 2 , and sex criteria.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Perioperative, oncologic, and economic (including survival) outcomes were compared. Because of institutional policy, actual cost values are presented as the lowest direct cost value as "100%," and other values are presented as proportional to the index value.
RESULTS
We examined 68 patients (34 in each group). Both groups had similar preoperative characteristics, including preoperative chemoradiation rates. Operative time (319 vs 309 min), length of stay (7.2 vs 7.4 d), postoperative complications (38.2% vs 41.2%), conversion to open (5 vs 4), complete mesorectal excision (76.4% vs 79.4%), radial margin involvement (2.9% vs 8.9%), and direct hospital cost parameters (mean difference 26%, median difference 43%) were comparable between robotic and laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection groups, respectively (all p > 0.05). Local recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival rates (85.3% vs 76.5%) were also similar after 22 months of follow-up between the groups.
LIMITATIONS
The main limitations of this study are its retrospective nature and the variety in concomitant procedures.
CONCLUSIONS
Robotic abdominoperineal resections provided in carefully matched patients with rectal cancer showed similar perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes compared to laparoscopic abdominoperineal resections. Our study was not powered to detect a significant increase in cost with robotic abdominoperineal resections. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B920 .
RESULTADOS Y ANLISIS DE COSTO DE LA RESECCIN ABDOMINOPERINEAL LAPAROSCPICA VS LA ROBTICA EN CASOS DE CNCER DE RECTO ESTUDIO DE CASOS EMPAREJADOS
ANTECEDENTES:Si bien la resección abdominoperineal laparoscópica está bien definida, la literatura carece de estudios comparativos sobre la resección abdominoperineal robótica. Dado que las resecciones abdominoperineales robóticas generalmente no requieren movilización esplénica o una anastomosis en casos de reconstrucción, se supone que el tiempo medio en la consola sea más corto que durante una resección anterior baja. Hipotéticamente las resecciones abdominoperineales robóticas y laparoscópicas nos proporcionarían resultados oncológicos y económicos similares.OBJETIVO:Comparar los resultados perioperatorios, oncológicos y económicos de la resección abdominoperineal robótica y laparoscópica.DISEÑO:Esta fue una cohorte de pacientes retrospectiva, emparejada por casos.AJUSTE:Estudio realizado en un centro de referencia terciario.PACIENTES:Todos los pacientes que se sometieron a resecciones abdominoperineales LAParoscópicas o ROBóticas entre Enero de 2008 y Abril de 2017 fueron identificados y emparejados según la edad ±5, el IMC ±3 y los criterios de sexo en una proporción de 1:1.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se compararon los resultados perioperatorios, oncológicos y económicos (incluida la sobrevida). Debido a la política institucional, los valores de costos reales se presentan como el valor de costo directo más bajo al 100% y los otros valores se presentan como proporcionales al valor índice.RESULTADOS:Se analizaron 68 pacientes (LAP-34 y ROB-34). Ambos grupos tenían características preoperatorias similares, incluidas las tasas de radio-quimioterapia pre-operatoria. Los tiempos operatorios fueron de 319 y 309 minutos, la estadía hospitalaria de 7 días en los dos grupos, las complicaciones post-operatorias fueron de 38,2% LAP frente a 41,2% ROB, la tasa de conversion fué de 5 a 4, la excisión total del mesorrecto de 76,4% frente a 79,4%, la resección radial con afectación de los márgenes de 2,9% frente a 8,9% y los parámetros de costes hospitalarios directos (diferencia de medias 26%, diferencia de medianas 43%) fueron comparables entre los grupos, de resección abdominoperineal robótica y laparoscópica, respectivamente (todos p > 0,05). Las tasas de recurrencia local, sobrevida libre de enfermedad y sobrevida general (85,3% frente a 76,5%) también fueron similares después de 22 meses de seguimiento entre los grupos.LIMITACIONES:La naturaleza retrospectiva y la variedad de procedimientos concomitantes fueron las principales limitaciones de este estudio.CONCLUSIONES:Las resecciones abdominoperineales robóticas proporcionaron resultados oncológicos perioperatorios y a corto plazo similares en pacientes con cáncer de recto cuidadosamente emparejados en comparación con las resecciones abdominoperineales laparoscópicas. Nuestro estudio no fue diseñado para detectar un aumento significativo en el costo relacionado con la resección abdominoperineal robótica. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B920 . (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo ).
Topics: Costs and Cost Analysis; Humans; Laparoscopy; Postoperative Complications; Proctectomy; Rectal Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35195554
DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000002394 -
Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery Jan 2020Abdominoperineal resection (APR), which involves resection of the rectum, anal canal, and perianal skin, results in a large dead space in the pelvis, devascularized...
BACKGROUND
Abdominoperineal resection (APR), which involves resection of the rectum, anal canal, and perianal skin, results in a large dead space in the pelvis, devascularized tissues, and high bacterial loads. This predisposes to wound complications, especially in the setting of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Additional sacral resection further compounds these effects. We aimed to assess perineal wound outcomes and complications in patients who underwent flap reconstruction for APR with sacrectomy (APRS) at our institution.
METHODS
We reviewed the charts of all patients who underwent flap reconstruction for APRS over a 20-year period (1999-2018). Medical comorbidities, details of the surgical procedure, and major and minor wound complications were recorded and analyzed.
RESULTS
Forty-six patients underwent flap reconstruction following APRS-28 (60%) for colorectal cancer, 8 (17%) for sacral chordoma, and 10 diagnosed with other malignant histologies. Rectus abdominis myocutaneous (RAM) flap reconstruction was used in 42 patients (91%). The median time to the first major perineal complication was 111 days (interquartile range: 22-660 days). Half of our cohort ( = 23) experienced a major perineal complication. No significant differences were found in major or minor perineal or abdominal wall complications between RAM flap and other flaps. APR with high sacrectomy was performed in 27 patients (59%) and was associated with significantly increased full-thickness dehiscence in the perineal region when compared with APR with low sacrectomy, 33 versus 0%, respectively ( = 0.0076). Complete flap loss occurred in one patient.
CONCLUSION
The RAM flap was the workhorse flap for pelvic reconstruction following APRS in our cohort. Wound complications are common following APRS. High sacrectomy is associated with higher incidence of complications compared with low sacrectomy. Optimal surgical planning and patient counseling is fundamental to improve current surgical outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Perineum; Proctectomy; Plastic Surgery Procedures; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectus Abdominis; Sacrum; Surgical Flaps; Treatment Outcome; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 31537019
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1697629 -
Acta Chirurgica Belgica Oct 2021Conventional abdominoperineal resection (APR) has a high rate of local recurrence. Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) can potentially diminish the rate of...
INTRODUCTION
Conventional abdominoperineal resection (APR) has a high rate of local recurrence. Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) can potentially diminish the rate of intraoperative tumour perforation (IOTP) and can provide wider circumferential resection margins (CRM) but at the price of higher perineal complication rate. The aim of our study was to compare the short term results of conventional APR to ELAPE.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Thirty-five consecutively operated APRs compared to 38 also consecutively operated ELAPEs. Prospectively collected short-term outcome data were analysed retrospectively.
RESULTS
There was no difference in demographics, disease stage or tumour location between groups. IOTP rate and CRM positivity rates were similar between the two groups ( = .608). No difference was found in major (Clavien-Dindo III-V) complications, but we found statistically significant difference in minor (Clavien-Dindo I-II) complications ( = .01) in favour of the ELAPE group. Frequency of perineal SSI was lower in ELAPE group, but the difference was not significant ( = .320). Intraoperative iatrogenic complications occurred at significantly lower rate in ELAPE group ( = .035). Also, postoperative morbidity connected with the dissection in the perineal phase (e.g. urine incontinence, urinary retention) was significantly lower ( = .018) after ELAPE.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
In our experience ELAPE operations may diminish the rate of Clavien-Dindo I-II complications compared to conventional APR. This effect is ensuing from the decrease of intraoperative iatrogenic complications and from the decrease of minor postoperative complications.
Topics: Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Perineum; Proctectomy; Rectal Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32496868
DOI: 10.1080/00015458.2020.1778265 -
Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery Feb 2022Pelvic reconstruction with a muscle flap significantly improves postoperative outcomes following abdominoperineal resection (APR). Despite it being the gold standard,...
BACKGROUND
Pelvic reconstruction with a muscle flap significantly improves postoperative outcomes following abdominoperineal resection (APR). Despite it being the gold standard, significant surgeon-selection bias remains with respect to the necessity of pelvic obliteration, flap choice, and ostomy placement. The objective of the study was to characterize management practices among colorectal surgeons (CSs) and plastic surgeons (PSs).
METHODS
Specialty-specific surveys were distributed electronically to CSs and PSs via surgical societies. Surveys were designed to illustrate geographic and specialty-specific differences in management.
RESULTS
Of 106 (54 CSs and 52 PSs) respondents (58% Canada, 21% Europe, 14% the United States, and 6% Asia/Africa), significant interdisciplinary differences in practices were observed. Most respondents indicated that multidisciplinary meetings were not performed (74% of CSs and 78% of PSs). For a nonradiated pelvic dead space with small perineal defect, 91% of CSs and 56% of PSs indicated that flap reconstruction was not required. For a radiated pelvic dead space with small perineal defect, only 54% of CSs and 6% of PSs indicated that there was no need for flap reconstruction. With respect to ostomy placement, 87% of CSs and 21% of PSs indicated that stoma placement through the rectus was superior. When two ostomies were required, most CSs preferred exteriorizing ostomies through bilateral recti and requesting thigh-based reconstruction. PSs favored the vertical rectus abdominis muscle (VRAM; 52%) over the gracilis (23%) and inferior gluteal artery perforator (IGAP; 23%) flaps. Among PSs, North Americans favor abdominally based flaps (VRAM 60%), while Europeans favor gluteal-based flaps (IGAP 78%).
CONCLUSION
A lack of standardization continues to exist with respect to the reconstruction of pelvic defects following APR and pelvic exenteration. Geographic and interdisciplinary biases with respect to ostomy placement, flap choice, and role for pelvic obliteration continues to influence reconstructive practices. These cases should continue to be approached on a case by case basis, driven by pathology, presence of radiation, comorbidities, and the size of the pelvic and perineal defect.
Topics: Colorectal Neoplasms; Humans; Pelvic Exenteration; Perineum; Proctectomy; Plastic Surgery Procedures; Surgeons; Surgical Flaps
PubMed: 34187060
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1729750