Extralevator with vs nonextralevator abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer: the RELAPe randomized controlled trial

被引:22
|
作者
Bianco, F. [1 ,2 ]
Romano, G. [2 ]
Tsarkov, P. [3 ]
Stanojevic, G. [4 ]
Shroyer, K. [5 ]
Giuratrabocchetta, S. [1 ]
Bergamaschi, R. [1 ]
机构
[1] SUNY Stony Brook, Div Colorectal Surg, Stony Brook, NY USA
[2] Natl Canc Inst, Dept Colorectal Surg, Naples, Italy
[3] Sechenov First Moscow State Med Univ, Dept Colorectal Surg, Moscow, Russia
[4] Sch Univ Nis, Dept Colorectal Surg, Nish, Serbia
[5] SUNY Stony Brook, Dept Pathol, Stony Brook, NY USA
关键词
Randomized controlled trial; circumferential resection margin; extralevator abdominoperineal excision; TOTAL MESORECTAL EXCISION; FLAP RECONSTRUCTION; RESECTION; OUTCOMES; STANDARD; INFECTIONS; CARCINOMA; SCIENCE; SURGERY; CARE;
D O I
10.1111/codi.13436
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Aim A randomized controlled trial was conducted to test the null hypothesis that there is no difference in circumferential resection margin (CRM) between extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) and non-ELAPE for rectal cancer. Method This was a multicentre, randomized controlled trial registered as NCT01702116. Patients with rectal cancer involving the external anal sphincter were randomized to ELAPE or non-ELAPE following neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Randomization was performed according to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines. The primary end-point was CRM (in mm), defined as the shortest distance between the tumour and the cut edge of the specimen. Pathologists and centralized pathology were blinded to the patients' study arm. Interrater reliability (IRR) was assessed using Kendall's coefficient. Intra-operative perforation (IOP) was any rectal defect determined at pathology. Complications were classified using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Participating surgeons were retrained and credentialed. A sample size calculation showed that 34 subjects would provide sufficient power to reject the null hypothesis. Results Thirty-four patients underwent the allocated intervention. Seventeen patients treated with ELAPE were comparable with 17 patients treated with non-ELAPE regarding age, gender, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) class and pre-existing comorbidities. CRM depth (7.14 +/- 5.76 mm vs 2.98 +/- 3.28 mm, P = 0.016) and involvement rates (5.8% vs 41.0%, P = 0.04) were significantly increased in patients treated with ELAPE. The IRR for CRM was 0.78. There were no significant differences in IOP (5.8% vs 11.7%, P = 0.77) and complication rates (29% vs 29%, P = 0.97). Conclusions ELAPE was associated with statistically improved CRM with no difference in IOP and complication rates compared with non-ELAPE for rectal cancer involving the external anal sphincter.
引用
收藏
页码:148 / 157
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Extended abdominoperineal excision vs. standard abdominoperineal excision in rectal cancer—a systematic overview
    Sigmar Stelzner
    Carsta Koehler
    Juliane Stelzer
    Anja Sims
    Helmut Witzigmann
    International Journal of Colorectal Disease, 2011, 26
  • [32] Outcome of extralevator abdominoperineal excision over conventional abdominoperineal excision for low rectal tumor: a meta-analysis
    Yang, Yue
    Xu, Huirong
    Shang, Zhenhua
    Chen, Shouzhen
    Chen, Fan
    Deng, Qiming
    Luo, Li
    Zhu, Liang
    Shi, Benkang
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE, 2015, 8 (09): : 14855 - 14862
  • [33] LAPAROSCOPY IN COMBINATION WITH TRANSPERINEAL EXTRALEVATOR ABDOMINOPERINEAL EXCISION FOR LOCALLY ADVANCED LOW RECTAL CANCER.
    Han, J.
    Wang, Z.
    Gao, Z.
    Wei, G.
    Yang, Y.
    Zhai, Z.
    Zhao, B.
    Qu, H.
    DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 2017, 60 (06) : E307 - E308
  • [34] Local control and survival after extralevator abdominoperineal excision for locally advanced or low rectal cancer
    Palmer, G.
    Anderin, C.
    Martling, A.
    Holm, T.
    COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2014, 16 (07) : 527 - 532
  • [35] Deep Pelvic Anatomy Revisited for a Description of Crucial Steps in Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision for Rectal Cancer
    Stelzner, Sigmar
    Holm, Torbjorn
    Moran, Brendan J.
    Heald, Richard J.
    Witzigmann, Helmut
    Zorenkov, Dimitri
    Wedel, Thilo
    DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 2011, 54 (08) : 947 - 957
  • [36] Oncological and quality of life outcomes following extralevator versus standard abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer
    Kamali, D.
    Sharpe, A.
    Musbahi, A.
    Reddy, A.
    ANNALS OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS OF ENGLAND, 2017, 99 (05) : 402 - 409
  • [37] Oncological results and complication rate following extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for low rectal cancer
    Przedlacka, A.
    Aldridge, A.
    Harshen, R.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2018, 105 : 82 - 82
  • [38] Improved Oncological Outcome After Modified Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision in Low Rectal Cancer Patients
    Martijnse, I.
    Dudink, R.
    Nieuwenhuijzen, G.
    van de Velde, C.
    Quirke, P.
    Rutten, H.
    West, N.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2011, 47 : S395 - S395
  • [39] Extralevator abdominoperineal excision versus conventional surgery for low rectal cancer: a single surgeon experience
    Nessar, Gurel
    Demirbag, Ali Eba
    Celep, Bahadir
    Elbir, Orhan Hayri
    Kayaalp, Cuneyt
    TURKISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2016, 32 (04): : 244 - 247
  • [40] Extended abdominoperineal excision vs. standard abdominoperineal excision in rectal cancer-a systematic overview
    Stelzner, Sigmar
    Koehler, Carsta
    Stelzer, Juliane
    Sims, Anja
    Witzigmann, Helmut
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2011, 26 (10) : 1227 - 1240