Transperineal minimally invasive abdomino-perineal resection: preliminary outcomes and future perspectives
- 38 Downloads
Abdomino-perineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer is challenging, due to the difficult exposure of the surgical field. Many investigations proved worst results in terms of circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement compared to rectal anterior resection (RAR) with total mesorectal excision (TME). Extralevator abdomino-perineal excision (ELAPE) improved oncologic outcomes, but is burdened by important limitations (positioning, wound closure). Applying the concept of transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) and the experience in transanal TME (TaTME) to the perineal phase of APR could overcome these limitations. A series of consecutive cases of transperineal minimally invasive APR was matched with an historical series of standard laparoscopic APR. Primary endpoints were global complication rate and CRM involvement, secondary endpoints were operative time, time to flatus and oral feeding and length of hospital stay. Fifteen patients underwent a transperineal minimally invasive APR for cancer, median age was 65 (49–88) years, median distance from the anal verge was 3 (2–5) cm and six patients underwent neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy. No intraoperative complications occurred in both groups; need of post-operative blood transfusions was significantly higher in the traditional laparoscopic APR group. No differences were reported in terms of wound dehiscence between the two groups. Positive CRM was reduced in transperineal minimally invasive APR versus standard laparoscopic APR, but the difference was not statistically significant. Transperineal minimally invasive APR appears to be safe and could improve post-operative and oncologic outcomes by means of better vision and reduced surgical trauma.
KeywordsRectal cancer Abdomino-perineal resection Minimally invasive surgery Circumferential resection margin
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Research involving human participants and/or animals
All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (Institutional and National).
Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.
- 3.den Dulk M, Putter H, Collette L, Marijnen CA, Folkesson J, Bosset JF, Rödel C, Bujko K, Påhlman L, van de Velde CJ (2009) The abdominoperineal resection itself is associated with an adverse outcome: the European experience based on a pooled analysis of five European randomised clinical trials on rectal cancer. Eur J Cancer 45(7):1175–1183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Benson AB 3rd, Bekaii-Saab T, Chan E, Chen YJ, Choti MA, Cooper HS, Engstrom PF, Enzinger PC, Fakih MG, Fuchs CS, Grem JL, Hunt S, Leong LA, Lin E, Martin MG, May KS, Mulcahy MF, Murphy K, Rohren E, Ryan DP, Saltz L, Sharma S, Shibata D, Skibber JM, Small W Jr, Sofocleous CT, Venook AP, Willett CG, Freedman-Cass DA, Gregory KM (2012) Rectal cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 10(12):1528–1564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.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, MRC CR07/NCIC-CTG CO16 Trial Investigators, NCRI Colorectal Cancer Study Group (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 CR1 and NCIC-CTG CO16 randomised clinical trial. Lancet 373:821–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Martijnse IS, Dudink RL, West NP, Wasowicz D, Nieuwenhuijzen GA, van Lijnschoten I, Martijn H, Lemmens VE, van de Velde CJ, Nagtegaal ID, Quirke P, Rutten HJ (2012) Focus on extralevator perineal dissection in supine position for low rectal cancer has led to better quality of surgery and oncologic outcome. Ann Surg Oncol 19(3):786–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar