Factors influencing circumferential resection margin in rectal cancer

Aim Abdominoperineal excision (APR) has been associated with higher circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement and local recurrence rates than extralevator APR for low rectal cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the CRMs in APR and low anterior resection (LAR) specimens and to identify factors influencing CRM involvement. Method All pathological specimens from consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent curative resection at the Cleveland Clinic Florida, from January 2000 to July 2010, were reviewed by two pathologists. Demographics, tumour characteristics, operative data, postoperative pathology and Dworak’s tumour regression grade were compared between specimens with positive and negative CRMs. Results One‐hundred and fifty‐four patients underwent curative APR (n = 65) or LAR (n = 69). Mean tumour size was 3.6 cm, and mean distance from the dentate line was 5.4 cm. Nine (6.8%) patients had a positive CRM (n = 6 APR, n = 3 LAR), which was associated with tumour size > 5.9 cm (P = 0.002), a distance of ≤ 2.6 cm from the dentate line (P = 0.013), microvascular invasion (P = 0.009), perineural invasion (P < 0.001), number of positive lymph nodes (P = 0.046) and incomplete total mesorectal excision (TME) (P < 0.001). APR specimens were three times more likely than LAR specimens to have an incomplete mesorectum (9.8%vs 2.9%, P = 0.322). Conclusions Factors associated with a positive CRM were tumour size > 5.9 cm, a distance of ≤ 2.6 cm from the dentate line, incomplete TME, number of positive nodes and microvascular and perineural invasion. The incidence of a positive CRM was not significantly different between LAR and APR (n = 3 LAR and n = 6 APR).     

Examination of outcome following abdominoperineal resection for adenocarcinoma in Oxford

Aim Abdominoperineal resection (APR) has been shown to have poor outcomes compared with anterior resection (AR) in the treatment of rectal cancer. We compared APR outcomes with those for low AR. Method Lower third rectal cancers treated at the John Radcliffe Hospital with APR and low AR were examined using a prospectively collected database augmented with review of patient records. For all cases (APR and low AR), a range of patient, cancer and outcome data were collected. A selected group was created on the basis of exclusions. Outcomes for the global and selected APR and low AR groups were compared using the Kaplan–Meier method. CRM+ve and CRM?ve APR cases were compared. Results Between 1994 and 2003, 70 APR and 93 low AR were performed. After exclusions, 42 APR and 81 low AR remained. Median follow‐up was 4.8 years. Five year survival for the APR group was significantly worse than for the low AR group. The APR group showed significantly fewer T0 cancers and significantly more T3 cancers. CRM R1 involvement was significantly higher for the APR group. The CRM+ve APR group contained significantly more later stage cancers, more defective resection specimens, more abscesses and fistulas and was associated with more local recurrence. Conclusions These data showed that APR led to worse results than low AR in terms of overall survival and circumferential margin involvement, but that the cancers treated with APR tended to be more locally advanced.     

Endoscopic transanal resection provides palliation equivalent to transabdominal resection in patients with metastatic rectal cancer

Patients with metastatic rectal cancer precluding curative low anterior resection (LAR) or abdominoperineal resection (APR) can require palliation for impending obstruction. LAR or APR is frequently not optimal because of the associated operative morbidity. Lesser procedures such as diverting colostomy require patients to live with a permanent stoma. Endoscopic transanal resection (ETAR) has been used for excision of rectal lesions. To determine whether ETAR provides palliation equivalent to LAR or APR, we reviewed the outcomes of 49 patients with rectal adenocarcinoma and unresectable liver metastases who required palliative intervention between January 1989 and July 1996. Of these 49 patients, 24 underwent ETAR; the intraluminal tumor was resected using the urologic resectoscope to achieve a hemostatic, patent lumen. The outcomes of these patients were compared to those of the other 25 patients who had palliative LAR, APR, or a Hartmann procedure during the same period. The median distance of the tumors from the anal verge was similar (5 cm; range 1 to 15 cm). ETAR patients had a higher percentage of poorly differentiated tumors (35% vs. 6%, P = 0.034) and higher preoperative alkaline phosphatase values (478 ±75 mg/dl vs. 231 ±24 mg/dl; P<0.015), suggesting more aggressive disease and greater hepatic tumor burden, respectively. Despite these differences, overall survival and time spent outside the hospital were similar in the two groups. The median number of debulking procedures required in the 24 ETAR patients was two (range 1 to 17). Resections in the 25 LAR/APR patients included LAR in 20, APR in two, and Hartmann procedures in three. There was a trend toward more stomas in the LAR/APR group (28% vs. 17%). More important, morbidity was significantly higher in the LAR/APR patients (24% vs. 4%; P = 0.049). In conclusion, ETAR is a safe alternative for the palliation of incurable rectal tumors. Compared to transabdominal resection, ETAR provides equivalent palliation as measured by survival and proportion of the patient’s life spent outside the hospital, with a lower stoma rate and significantly less morbidity. Therefore, in select patients with metastatic rectal cancer, ETAR is an important palliative option. Presented at the Forty-First Annual Meeting of The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, San Diego, Calif., May 2l–24, 2000.     

Quality of life after coloanal anastomosis and abdominoperineal resection for distal rectal cancers: sphincter preservation vs quality of life

Aim A permanent colostomy is considered to have an adverse impact on quality of life (QOL). However, functional outcomes following sphincter preservation also affect QOL. Our aim was to determine differences in QOL of patients undergoing coloanal anastomosis (CAA) or abdominoperineal resection (APR) for distal rectal cancer. Method Eighty‐five patients underwent CAA (72 with intestinal continuity and 13 with a stoma because of complications) and 83 patients underwent APR for a distal rectal cancer between 1995 and 2001 at a single institution and responded to our survey. QOL was evaluated using the EORTC QLQ‐C30 and QLQ‐CR38. Results Patients with CAA were younger than APR patients (mean age 57 vs 62 years, P < 0.001), but gender distribution, tumour stage and proportion of subjects receiving radiotherapy was not significantly different. Patients undergoing CAA had higher scores (better QOL) for physical functioning; lower scores (fewer symptoms) for fatigue, pain, financial difficulties, weight loss and chemotherapy side effects; and higher scores (more symptoms) for constipation and gastrointestinal symptoms compared with APR patients. CAA patients had higher scores (better QOL) for body image in men but not in women. Sexual functioning scores in men and women were lower (worse QOL) in CAA patients compared with APR patients. Conclusions QOL after APR is comparable to sphincter preservation, although there are some differences that need to be considered. QOL and functional results should be taken into account with the oncological outcome when devising management strategy for distal rectal cancer.     

The modern abdominoperineal excision: the next challenge after total mesorectal excision

OBJECTIVES: Examine the cause of local recurrence (LR) and patient survival (S) following abdominoperineal resection (APR) and anterior resection (AR) for rectal carcinoma and the effect of introduction of total mesorectal excision (TME) on APR. METHODS: A total of 608 patients underwent surgery for rectal cancer in Leeds from 1986 to 1997. CRM status and follow-up data of local recurrence and patient survival were available for 561 patients, of whom 190 underwent APR (32.4%) and 371 AR (63.3%). Also, a retrospective study of pathologic images of 93 specimens of rectal carcinoma. RESULTS: Patients undergoing APR had a higher LR and lower survival (LR, 22.3% versus 13.5%, P = 0.002; S, 52.3% versus 65.8%, P = 0.003) than AR. LR free rates were lower in the APR group and cancer specific survival was lowered (LR, 66% versus 77%, log rank P = 0.03; S, 48% versus 59%, log rank P = 0.02). Morphometry: total area of surgically removed tissue outside the muscularis propria was smaller in APR specimens (n = 27) than AR specimens (n = 66) (P < 0.0001). Linear dimensions of transverse slices of tissue containing tumor, median posterior, and lateral measurements were smaller (P < 0.05) in the APR than the AR group. APR specimens with histologically positive CRM (n = 11) had a smaller area of tissue outside the muscularis propria (P = 0.04) compared with the CRM-negative APR specimens (n = 16). Incidence of CRM involvement in the APR group (41%) was higher than in the AR group (12%) (P = 0.006) in the 1997 to 2000 cohort. Similar results (36% and 22%) were found in the 1986 to 1997 cohort (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated by APR have a higher rate of CRM involvement, a higher LR, and poorer prognosis than AR. The frequency of CRM involvement for APR has not diminished with TME. CRM involvement in the APR specimens is related to the removal of less tissue at the level of the tumor in an APR. Where possible, a more radical operation should be considered for all low rectal cancer tumors.     

腹腔镜微创技术施行直肠癌腹会阴联合切除手术的体会

目的:总结腹腔镜微创技术施行腹会阴联合切除术(abdom inal pelvic resection,APR)治疗低位直肠癌的手术体会。方法:2003年1月至2006年12月,我院为17例低位直肠癌患者行腹腔镜微创APR根治术。其中男10例,女7例,45~82岁,平均72岁。腹部手术在腹腔镜下完成,会阴部手术按常规手术进行。结果:17例中14例(82.4%)采用完全腹腔镜术式,3例(17.6%)采用腹腔镜辅助术式。手术中均未行盆底腹膜关闭和结肠造口旁间隙关闭。平均手术时间为(166.2±42.7)m in,全组无手术死亡病例。术后早期并发症有会阴部切口感染2例(11.8%),不全性肠梗阻1例(5.9%)。术后随访2~48个月,平均26个月,最长无瘤生存期48个月,造口旁疝1例(5.9%),远处转移1例(5.9%),无局部复发,无戳口和切口肿瘤种植以及肠梗阻发生。结论:腹腔镜微创技术用于APR手术具有患者创伤小的优势;术中造成的系膜裂孔和盆底腹膜均无缝合关闭的必要,但结肠造口必须严密缝合腹膜防止造口旁疝形成;会阴部手术必须严格无菌操作预防感染。腹腔镜微创技术是APR手术的较好方式。     

Rectal cancer: involved circumferential resection margin – a root cause analysis

Introduction  An involved circumferential resection margin (CRM) following surgery for rectal cancer is the strongest predictor of local recurrence and may represent a failure of the multidisciplinary team (MDT) process.
Aim of study  The study analyses the causes of positive CRM in patients undergoing elective surgery for rectal cancer with respect to the decision-making process of the MDT, preoperative rectal cancer staging and surgical technique.
Method  From March 2002 to September 2005, data were collected prospectively on all patients undergoing elective rectal cancer surgery with curative intent. The data on all patients identified with positive CRM were analysed.
Results  Of 158 patients (male:female = 2.2:1) who underwent potentially curative surgery, 16 (10%) patients had a positive CRM on postoperative histology. Four were due to failure of the pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) staging scans to predict an involved margin, two with an equivocal CRM on MRI did not have preoperative radiotherapy, one had an inaccurate assessment of the site of primary tumour and in one intra-operative difficulty was encountered. No failure of staging or surgery was identified in the remaining eight of the 16 patients. Abdominoperineal resection (APR) was associated with a 26% positive CRM, compared with 5% for anterior resection.
Conclusion  No single consistent cause was found for a positive CRM. The current MDT process and/or surgical technique may be inadequate for low rectal tumours requiring APR.     

Is the circumferential resection margin a predictor of local recurrence after preoperative radiotherapy and optimal surgery for rectal carcinoma?

OBJECTIVE: Circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement has been correlated with a high risk of developing local recurrence. The aim of this study was to examine the prognostic significance of the CRM involvement after curative resection of rectal cancer in patients treated with preoperative radiotherapy and postoperative chemotherapy where indicated. METHOD: All patients with rectal cancer treated in a regional central unit from 1996 to 2004 were identified. A surgical resection was performed on 257 patients, and in 229 of these this was assessed as potentially curative. The CRM was examined in all patients. A CRM of < or = 1 mm was considered positive. RESULTS: A positive margin was seen in 19 (8%) patients. At a median follow up of 40 months, only four (1.7%) patients had developed local recurrence, one of whom had a positive CRM. In the four patients the tumour was 5 cm or less from the anal verge. There were no significant differences regarding local recurrence and survival between CRM positive and negative tumours. CONCLUSION: Rectal cancer managed by combined radiochemotherapy and surgery resulted in a low positive CRM rate and a low local recurrence rate. An involved CRM was not a predictor of local recurrence.     

Technical and oncological feasibility of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with pouch coloanal anastomosis for rectal cancer

Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate the technical and oncological feasibility of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) with coloanal anastomosis for mid and low rectal cancer. Methods During a 2‐year period, 50 patients underwent laparoscopic TME with coloanal anastomosis for rectal carcinoma located at a median of 4.5 (range 2–11) cm from the anal verge. Pre‐operative radiotherapy was used in 46 patients. Intersphincteric dissection was combined with the laparoscopic procedure to achieve sphincter preservation. Results Conversion to a laparotomy was necessary in six patients. Postoperative mortality and morbidity were 2% and 28%, respectively. Morbidity was lower in patients operated on during the second part of the study, who had extraction of the rectal specimen through a small laparotomy incision, than in those operated on during the first part of the study when removal of the specimen was by transanal extraction. Oncological quality of excision was safe in 44 patients with intact or almost intact rectal fascia in 88% and R0 resection in 90%. At a median follow‐up of 18 months, there was no local or port‐site recurrence. Conclusion This study confirms our preliminary results of oncological feasibility of laparoscopic TME with sphincter preservation for mid and low rectal cancer, and showed that morbidity can be decreased by using a standardized surgical procedure.     

Laparoscopic sphincter‐preserving total mesorectal excision: 10‐year report

Aim Total mesorectal excision (TME) is currently the gold standard for resection of mid or low rectal cancer and is associated with a low local recurrence rate. However, few studies have reported the long‐term oncological outcome following use of a laparoscopic approach. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long‐term oncological outcome after laparoscopic sphincter‐preserving TME with a median follow up of about 4 years. Method Patients with mid or low rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic sphincter‐preserving TME with curative intent between March 1999 and March 2009 were prospectively recruited for analysis. Results During the 10‐year study period, 177 patients underwent laparoscopic sphincter‐preserving TME with curative intent for rectal cancer. Conversion was required in two (1%) patients. There was no operative mortality. At a median follow‐up period of 49 months, local recurrence had occurred in nine (5.1%) patients. The overall metastatic recurrence rate after curative resection was 22%. The overall 5‐year survival and 5‐year disease‐free survival in the present study were 74% and 71%, respectively. Conclusion The results of this study show that laparoscopic sphincter‐preserving TME is safe with long‐term oncological outcomes comparable to those of open surgery.     

Ultralow anterior resection with intersphincteric dissection –what is the limit of safe sphincter preservation?

Introduction In the treatment of low rectal cancer, the possibility of sphincter preserving surgery is increased by partial sphincteric resection which may allow an oncologically safe resection margin in some patients who would traditionally have been treated by abdominoperineal resection. The aim of this study is to evaluate the morbidity, mortality and the oncological and functional results of intersphincteric resection to determine whether the technique may be considered a safe means of sphincter preservation. Methods Between May 1992 and December 1999, 26 patients (mean age 55 years, range 28–82) with adenocarcinoma of the rectum had partial sphincteric resection by an abdominal approach with a colonic J‐pouch anal anastomosis. The mean distance between the tumour and the anal verge 4.25 (range 3.1–5.25) cm. Four tumours were T1, 14 T2 (3 N+), 7 T3 (3 N+), and 1 T4 (N+). Neoadjuvant radiotherapy was used in 10 patients. The distal resection margin was positive in one patient who then proceeded to safe abdominoperineal resection (APR). In the remaining patient the mean distal resection margin on the fixed specimen was 1.6 (range 0.3–3.5) cm. Results There were no deaths. Morbidity was 30% with an anastomotic leak rate of 11%. At mean follow‐up of 39 (range 11–93) months the local recurrence rate was 3.4%. Functional results were evaluated in 25 patients at mean follow‐up of 27 (8–66) months: 65% had 0–2 bowel motions per 24 h, 31% had 3–5 and 4% between 6 and 9. Nine patients (36%) had nocturnal defecation. Continence was normal in 50% with 23% reporting incontinence to gas and 27% reporting minor episodes of incontinence. None had major incontinence and 85% considered their outcome satisfactory. Conclusion This study supports the current literature indicating that partial sphincteric resection is an oncologically and functionally safe alternative to abdominoperineal resection for some selected low rectal tumours.     

Intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: laparoscopic vs open surgery approach

Aim Laparoscopic sphincter‐saving surgery has been investigated for rectal cancer but not for tumours of the lower third. We evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer. Method From 1990 to 2007, patients with rectal tumour below 6 cm from the anal verge and treated by open or laparoscopic curative intersphincteric resection were included in a retrospective comparative study. Surgery included total mesorectal excision with internal sphincter excision and protected low coloanal anastomosis. Neoadjuvant treatment was given to patients with T3 or N+ tumours. Recurrence and survival were evaluated by the Kaplan–Meier method and compared using the Logrank test. Function was assessed using the Wexner continence score. Results Intersphincteric resection was performed in 175 patients with low rectal cancer: 110 had laparoscopy and 65 had open surgery. The two groups were similar according to age, sex, body mass index, ASA score, tumour stage and preoperative radiotherapy. Postoperative mortality (zero) and morbidity (23%vs 28%; P = 0.410) were similar in both groups. There was no difference in 5‐year local recurrence (5%vs 2%; P = 0.349) and 5‐year disease‐free survival (70%vs 71%; P = 0.862). Function and continence scores (11 vs 12; P = 0.675) were similar in both groups. Conclusion Intersphincteric resection did not alter long‐term tumour control of low rectal cancer. The safety and efficacy of the laparoscopic approach for intersphincteric resection are suggested by a similar short‐ and long‐term outcome as obtained by open surgery.     

Local recurrence after abdomino-perineal resection

Objective  Local recurrence of rectal cancer is a major cause of morbidity and mortality following curative resection. The published rates vary after abdomino-perineal resection (APR) from 5% to 47%. The aim of this study was to evaluate local recurrence following curative APR for low rectal cancer in our unit.
Method  The medical notes of patients treated between 1st January 1996 and 31st December 2000 were retrieved. Local recurrence was defined as the presence of tumour within the pelvis confirmed by clinical findings, pathological specimen or radiological reports. A curative resection was defined as excision of tumour in the absence of macroscopic metastatic disease and whose resection margins were greater than 1 mm circumferentially and 10 mm distally. Outcomes and survival were compared using Fisher's exact test and Kaplan–Meier method.
Results  Two hundred consecutive cases with a diagnosis of rectal cancer were identified of which 139 underwent a curative resection (69.5%). Of these 40 patients (28%) underwent APR with curative intent. Two patients (5%) developed local recurrence at 18 and 24 months respectively. The overall local recurrence rate for all curative rectal cancer surgery, in the same period was 2.6%. Eleven patients have died in the follow-up period of which nine were cancer-related deaths.
Conclusion  The local recurrence rates achieved with APR were not significantly different from those achieved with restorative operations. Tumours at the ano-rectal junction should not be dissected off the pelvic floor, but radically excised en bloc with the surrounding levator ani, as a cylinder, as originally described by Miles.     

Quality of mesorectum after laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer - Results of an audited teaching programme in Spain

Objective  The aim of this prospective observational study was to compare the quality of total mesorectal excision between laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer.
Method  In April 2006, the Spanish Association of Surgeons started an audited teaching programme. The project was similar to the Norwegian one and several training courses were arranged. Patients were classified into two groups: laparoscopic rectal resection (LR) and open rectal resection (OR). The quality of the mesorectum was scored: complete, nearly complete or incomplete. The circumferential margin (CRM) was considered positive, if tumour was located 1 mm or less from the surface of the specimen.
Results  Between 2006 and 2008, 604 patients underwent rectal resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: 209 patients were included in the LR group and 395 patients in the OR group. There were no differences in terms of number of lymph nodes affected, distance of the tumour from CRM. The mesorectum was complete in 464 (76.8%), nearly complete in 91 (15.1%) and incomplete in 49 patients (8.1%). CRM was negative in 534 patients (88.4%). No differences were observed between the two groups. The overall postoperative morbidity rate was 38.8% in LR group and 44.6% in OR group ( P  = 0.170). Overall postoperative mortality rate was 2.5%. One patient died (0.5%) in the LR group and 14 patients died (3.5%) in the OR group ( P  = 0.021).
Conclusion  Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer is feasible with the quality of mesorectal excision and postoperative outcomes similar to those of open surgery.     

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision can be performed on a nonselective basis in patients with rectal cancer with excellent medium‐term results

Aim Concerns exist regarding laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery due to increased rates of open conversion, complications and circumferential resection margin positivity. This study reports medium‐term results from consecutive unselected cases in a single surgeon series. Method The results of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer over a 9‐year period within the context of an evolving ‘enhanced recovery protocol’ (ERP) were reviewed from analysis of a prospectively maintained database. Results One hundred and fifty patients (91 male, median age 69 years, median BMI 26) underwent laparoscopic TME over 9 years. Median follow up was 28.5 months (range 0–88). Sixteen (10.6%) patients underwent neoadjuvant radiotherapy. Six (4.0%) required open conversion and 13 (9.0%) had an anastomotic leakage. The proportion of Dukes stages were: A, 33.3%; B, 30.7%; C, 31.3%; D, 4.7%. Five (3.3%) patients had an R1 and one an R2 resection. Median length of postoperative stay was 6 days. Three (2.0%) patients died within 30 days. Four (2.7%) developed local recurrence and 14 (9.3%) developed distant metastases. Predicted 5‐year disease‐free and overall survival rates by Kaplan–Meier analysis were 85.8% and 78.7%, respectively. Conclusion Laparoscopic TME surgery can safely be offered to unselected patients with rectal cancer with excellent medium‐term results.     

A case-matched comparison of the short-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term surgical outcomes of laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer, by comparing it with a case–control series of open APR.

Methods

Fourteen patients with rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic APR between August 2004 and November 2011 were compared with the open APR group of 14 patients matched for age, gender, and surgical procedure.

Results

There were no cases of conversion to laparotomy in the laparoscopic APR group and no mortality in either of the groups. The median operation was longer (P = 0.002), but the median amount of blood loss was smaller (P = 0.019), in the laparoscopic APR group. The median length of hospital stay of the laparoscopic APR group was 8 days, shorter than that of the open APR group (16 days, P < 0.001). The changes of the WBC count and serum CRP level after operations were significantly smaller in the laparoscopic APR group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the perioperative morbidity and readmission rates within 30 days.

Conclusion

Patients undergoing laparoscopic APR had superior perioperative outcomes to those undergoing open APR, except for the longer operation.     

Oncologic Outcomes After Radical Surgery Following Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Lower Rectal Cancer: Abdominoperineal Resection Versus Sphincter-Preserving Procedure

Background  Over the past several years, preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) has contributed remarkably to make more sphincter-preserving procedure (SPP) possible for lower rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes between abdominoperineal resection (APR) and SPP after preoperative CRT in patients with locally advanced lower rectal cancer. Methods  A retrospective investigation was conducted with a total of 122 patients who underwent radical surgery combined with preoperative CRT for locally advanced lower rectal cancer. Of these, 50 patients underwent APR and 72 received SPP. Surgery was performed 6–8 weeks after completion of preoperative CRT. Oncologic outcomes were compared between the two groups, and the clinicopathologic factors affecting the treatment outcomes were evaluated. Results  Circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement (P = 0.037) and postoperative complication rate (P = 0.032) were significantly different between APR and SPP. Patients who underwent APR had a higher 5-year local recurrence (22.0% vs. 11.5%, P = 0.028) and lower 5-year cancer-specific survival (52.9% vs. 71.1%, P = 0.03) rate than those who underwent SPP. Pathologic N stage was the most critical predictor for local recurrence and survival. Conclusions  Our study shows that APR following preoperative CRT exhibited more adverse oncologic outcomes compared with SPP. This result may be due to higher rates of CRM involvement in APR even with preoperative CRT. We suggest that sharp perineal dissection and wider cylindrical excision at the level of the anorectal junction are required to avoid CRM involvement and improve oncologic outcomes in patients who undergo APR following preoperative CRT.     

Extended abdominoperineal resection with gluteus maximus flap reconstruction of the pelvic floor for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative tumour perforation, positive tumour margins, wound complications and local recurrence are frequent difficulties with conventional abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer. An alternative technique is the extended posterior perineal approach with gluteus maximus flap reconstruction of the pelvic floor. The aim of this study was to report the technique and early experience of extended APR in a select cohort of patients. METHODS: The principles of operation are that the mesorectum is not dissected off the levator muscles, the perineal dissection is done in the prone position and the levator muscles are resected en bloc with the anus and lower rectum. The perineal defect is reconstructed with a gluteus maximus flap. Between 2001 and 2005, 28 patients with low rectal cancer were treated accordingly at the Karolinska Hospital. RESULTS: Two patients had ypT0 tumours, 20 ypT3 and six ypT4 tumours. Bowel perforation occurred in one, the circumferential resection margin (CRM) was positive in two, and four patients had local perineal wound complications. Two patients developed local recurrence after a median follow-up of 16 months. CONCLUSION: The extended posterior perineal approach with gluteus maximus flap reconstruction in APR has a low risk of bowel perforation, CRM involvement and local perineal wound complications. The rate of local recurrence may be lower than with conventional APR.     

低位直肠癌保肛术与腹会阴联合切除术后生存和复发多因素分析

目的 探讨低位直肠癌保肛术与腹会阴联合切除术对病人术后生存和肿瘤复发影响。方法 随访1995年1月至2005年6月期间,汕头大学医学院肿瘤医院外科手术治疗286例低位直肠癌,对保肛手术（SPO）与经腹会阴联合切除术（APR）两组病人的临床病理指标、存活率和局部复发状况进行统计学分析。结果 保肛手术组160例,术后局部复发率10％,生存期24．4个月,5年存活率为61.6％;经腹会阴切除术（APR）组126例,术后局部复发率13．5％,生存期33,2个月,5年存活率为68.8％,两组存活率比较差异无显著意义（P=0．22）。两组术后局部复发率比较差异也无统计学意义（P=0．23）。结论 低位直肠癌保肛术与腹会阴联合切除术并不影响低位直肠癌病人术后的生存和肿瘤复发。     

Partial longitudinal resection of the anorectum and sphincter for very low rectal adenocarcinoma: a surgical approach to avoid permanent colostomy

Aim Abdominoperineal resection has been the standard procedure for low rectal cancer. The present study details a new technique, partial longitudinal resection of the anorectum and sphincter, and assesses the oncological and functional outcomes. Method Between January 2004 and April 2008, 12 patients underwent partial longitudinal resection of the anorectum and sphincter for low rectal cancer. All patients underwent a diverting ileostomy and received biofeedback training before stoma closure. Functional results were assessed by vector manometry, Wexner constipation score and Wexner incontinence score. The quality of life (QoL) was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ‐C30). Results There was no postoperative mortality and a R0 curative resection was confirmed in every case. Morbidity included anastomotic leakage in three patients, one of whom underwent reoperation, and stenosis in 11, which was successfully managed with dilatation. The patient who underwent reoperation was not included in the functional analysis. The 11 successful patients received biofeedback training for 1–4 months, and underwent ileostomy closure 6–12 months after surgery. No patient had severe faecal incontinence after stoma closure. The EORTC QLQ‐C30 global health status and QoL scores at 12 months after stoma closure were 50.4 ± 24.3, similar to preoperation scores of 52.3 ± 25.6 (P = 0.927), and not significantly different to scores for the healthy control population of 63.4 ± 23.5 (P = 0.539). No patients developed local recurrence during the median observation period (35.5 months). One patient had distant metastases at 24 months, and underwent resection of the left liver. Conclusion Curability and acceptable anal function can be obtained by partial longitudinal resection of the anorectum and sphincter in patients with very low rectal cancers. This technique is recommended as an alternative to abdominoperineal resection in patients with external sphincter muscle invasion or tumours located below the dentate line.