Application of modified extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer resection

Xiang Zhang, Xin Li, Qingdi Qin, Yanlei Wang
{"title":"Application of modified extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer resection","authors":"Xiang Zhang, Xin Li, Qingdi Qin, Yanlei Wang","doi":"10.1007/s00464-024-11246-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Background</h3><p>Laparoscopic ELAPE surgery has been carried out in our center for a long time, and some modifications have been made in clinical practice. In this study, we compared conventional ELAPE operation with modified ELAPE operation to investigate the efficacy and safety of modified ELAPE operation.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>We retrospectively analyzed the data from 339 patients with low rectal cancer undergoing abdominoperineal resection from 2017 to 2021 in the Department of General Surgery, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University. Patients were classified into modified ELAPE groups (199 patients) and conventional ELAPE groups (140 patients). Total operation time, reconstruction time, postoperative hospital stay, total cost, intraoperative data, postoperative short-term and long-term complications and tumor recurrence were compared.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>The baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Total operation time was less with modified ELAPE group compared to conventional ELAPE group (190.6 ± 33.1 min vs 230.1 ± 51.6 min, <i>P</i> = 0.022). Pelvic floor reconstruction time was also less with modified ELAPE group compared to conventional ELAPE group (4.3 ± 1.2 min vs 11.9 ± 1.7 min, <i>P</i> = 0.004). Positive CRM was observed in 11 and 9 patients in modified ELAPE groups and conventional ELAPE groups (<i>P</i> = 0.744). IOP occurred in 12 and 7 patients in modified ELAPE group and conventional ELAPE group (<i>P</i> = 0.701). Total cost was also less with modified ELAPE group compared to conventional ELAPE group (9004 ± 1146 USD vs 10,336 ± 2047 USD, <i>P</i> = 0.031). The incidence of parastomal hernia was less with modified ELAPE group compared to conventional ELAPE group (7/199 vs 22/140, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001). Three-year follow-up data did not show any difference in overall survival rate or local occurrence between the two groups.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusion</h3><p>Modified ELAPE surgery is technically safe and feasible, and oncologically comparable to that of conventional ELAPE surgery, which can be considered for popularization and application.</p>","PeriodicalId":501625,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Endoscopy","volume":"11 11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-11246-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Laparoscopic ELAPE surgery has been carried out in our center for a long time, and some modifications have been made in clinical practice. In this study, we compared conventional ELAPE operation with modified ELAPE operation to investigate the efficacy and safety of modified ELAPE operation.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the data from 339 patients with low rectal cancer undergoing abdominoperineal resection from 2017 to 2021 in the Department of General Surgery, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University. Patients were classified into modified ELAPE groups (199 patients) and conventional ELAPE groups (140 patients). Total operation time, reconstruction time, postoperative hospital stay, total cost, intraoperative data, postoperative short-term and long-term complications and tumor recurrence were compared.

Results

The baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Total operation time was less with modified ELAPE group compared to conventional ELAPE group (190.6 ± 33.1 min vs 230.1 ± 51.6 min, P = 0.022). Pelvic floor reconstruction time was also less with modified ELAPE group compared to conventional ELAPE group (4.3 ± 1.2 min vs 11.9 ± 1.7 min, P = 0.004). Positive CRM was observed in 11 and 9 patients in modified ELAPE groups and conventional ELAPE groups (P = 0.744). IOP occurred in 12 and 7 patients in modified ELAPE group and conventional ELAPE group (P = 0.701). Total cost was also less with modified ELAPE group compared to conventional ELAPE group (9004 ± 1146 USD vs 10,336 ± 2047 USD, P = 0.031). The incidence of parastomal hernia was less with modified ELAPE group compared to conventional ELAPE group (7/199 vs 22/140, P < 0.001). Three-year follow-up data did not show any difference in overall survival rate or local occurrence between the two groups.

Conclusion

Modified ELAPE surgery is technically safe and feasible, and oncologically comparable to that of conventional ELAPE surgery, which can be considered for popularization and application.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在低位直肠癌切除术中应用改良腹外膀胱切除术
背景腹腔镜ELAPE手术在本中心开展已久,并在临床实践中进行了一些改良。本研究比较了传统ELAPE手术与改良ELAPE手术,以探讨改良ELAPE手术的有效性和安全性。方法我们回顾性分析了山东大学齐鲁医院普外科2017年至2021年接受腹腔镜直肠癌切除术的339例低位直肠癌患者的资料。患者被分为改良ELAPE组(199例)和传统ELAPE组(140例)。比较两组患者的手术总时间、重建时间、术后住院时间、总费用、术中数据、术后短期和长期并发症以及肿瘤复发情况。改良ELAPE组的总手术时间少于传统ELAPE组(190.6 ± 33.1 min vs 230.1 ± 51.6 min,P = 0.022)。与传统ELAPE组相比,改良ELAPE组的盆底重建时间也更短(4.3±1.2分钟 vs 11.9±1.7分钟,P = 0.004)。改良 ELAPE 组和传统 ELAPE 组分别有 11 名和 9 名患者观察到阳性 CRM(P = 0.744)。改良 ELAPE 组和传统 ELAPE 组分别有 12 名和 7 名患者出现眼压升高(P = 0.701)。改良ELAPE组的总费用也低于传统ELAPE组(9004 ± 1146美元 vs 10,336 ± 2047美元,P = 0.031)。与传统ELAPE组相比,改良ELAPE组的吻合口旁疝发生率较低(7/199 vs 22/140,P < 0.001)。结论改良ELAPE手术在技术上安全可行,在肿瘤学上与传统ELAPE手术相当,可考虑推广应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Short-term gut microbiota’s shift after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y vs one anastomosis gastric bypass: results of a multicenter randomized control trial Classifying frailty in the ventral hernia population Retrospective study on endoscopic treatment of recurrent esophageal cancer patients after radiotherapy State of the art medical devices for fluorescence-guided surgery (FGS): technical review and future developments Conquering the common bile duct: outcomes in minimally invasive transcystic common bile duct exploration versus ERCP
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1