ArticleSurgical endoscopy2016
Laparoscopic translevator approach to abdominoperineal resection for rectal adenocarcinoma: feasibility and short-term oncologic outcomes.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of transabdominal levator division during abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (APER).Techniques in coloproctology · 2017Pooled it
- Disease-free Survival and Local Recurrence for Laparoscopic Resection Compared With Open Resection of Stage II to III Rectal Cancer: Follow-up Results of the ACOSOG Z6051 Randomized Controlled Trial.Annals of surgery · 2019Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe extra-levator approach to abdominal perineal resection (APR) was developed in order to reduce the rates of positive circumferential resection margin. This approach, however, is associated with significant morbidity. We postulate that a less radical resection of the levators done laparoscopically could significantly decrease the rate of perineal complications while ensuring an oncologically adequate specimen. To date, to our knowledge, there are no reports in the literature describing a laparoscopic translevator approach for APR. The purpose of this study is to describe our initial experience with this approach and assess our short-term oncologic and clinical outcomes.
methodsThis is a retrospective study of patients who underwent laparoscopic APR with intra-abdominal levator transection for rectal cancer from 2012 to 2014 at a single tertiary care institution. Main outcome measures include: perineal flap rates, post-operative complications, length of stay, distance from tumour to circumferential resection margin, R0 status, and disease recurrence. Data are presented as median (interquartile range) unless otherwise noted.
resultsSeventeen cases were identified. Patient age was 61 (range 34-75), and 59 % were male. Pre-operative distance of the tumour from the anal verge was 2.6 cm (0.4-3.9). Post-operative length of stay was 4 (4-6) days. One patient required a perineal flap for reconstruction. Four patients (22 %) had perineal complications (three wound infections and one hernia). No patients reported sexual dysfunction, and one (5 %) developed urinary retention. Five (29 %) patients had a complete pathological response. The circumferential resection margin was 1.5 (0.8-2.5) cm, with no positive margins reported. The number of retrieved lymph nodes was 12 (range 2-30). Follow-up was 9.7 months (range 20 days-23 months), during which one patient developed recurrent disease.
conclusionsThis study describes a novel surgical approach to APR that has the potential to both decrease perineal complications and provide excellent oncologic results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26487217What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.