Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29887703›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of surgical oncology2018

Perineal Wound Complications Following Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision: Experience of a Regional Cancer Center.

Niharika Aggarwal, Ramakrishnan Ayloor Seshadri, Antony Arvind, Sunil Bhanu Jayanand

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of surgical oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04177407 (Pelvic Peritoneum Reconstruction Using the Bladder Peritoneum Flap in Laparoscopic Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision --- A Multi-center, Prospective Single-Arm Cohort Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04177407 naunknown statusnot on this map

Pelvic Peritoneum Reconstruction Using the Bladder Peritoneum Flap in Laparoscopic Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision --- A Multi-center, Prospective Single-Arm Cohort Study (IDEAL Phase 2A)

TypeinterventionalSponsorWest China HospitalRan2017 to 2021Enrolled30ConditionsRectal CancerArmsStandard laparoscopic ELAPE with pelvic peritoneal floor reconstruction using bladder peritoneum flap are to performed.
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Niharika Aggarwal1Department of Surgical Oncology, Cancer Institute (WIA), Chennai, 600036 India.
Ramakrishnan Ayloor Seshadri1Department of Surgical Oncology, Cancer Institute (WIA), Chennai, 600036 India.
Antony Arvind2Consultant Plastic Surgeon, Cancer Institute (WIA), Dr. S. Krishnamurthy campus, No.18, Sardar Patel road, Chennai, 600036 India.
Sunil Bhanu Jayanand1Department of Surgical Oncology, Cancer Institute (WIA), Chennai, 600036 India.
Cancer Institute (WIA) · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) results in a large perineal defect which needs reconstruction by a flap or biological mesh. The incidence of perineal wound complications is thought to be higher following an ELAPE compared to conventional abdominoperineal excision (APE). WE aimed to analyze the perineal wound complications following ELAPE in our institution. This was a retrospective analysis of all consecutive patients who underwent an APE (conventional and ELAPE) procedure in our institution between 2012 and 2015. We retrieved the demographic data, treatment data, and pathological data from the case records. Reconstruction of the perineal defect after a prone perineal dissection was performed using a local muscle flap. The incidence of perinealwound complications, hospital stay, and time to initiate adjuvant chemotherapy was compared between the two groups. A total of 71 patients underwent APE over a period of 41 months of which 21 patients underwent ELAPE. The perineal dissection during ELAPE was done in the prone position in 18 patients and in the supine position in 3 patients. Perineal wound complications were seen in 9 patients (42%) who underwent ELAPE compared to 17 patients (34%) who underwent conventional APE (p = 0.52). The mean duration of hospital stay was significantly longer in patients who underwent ELAPE when compared to those who underwent conventional APE (22.9 ± 3.6 days vs 14.6 ± 1.0 days, p = 0.03). The median interval between ELAPE and initiation of adjuvant chemo was 54 days (range 32-120 days) compared to 50 days (range 30-100 days) in patients undergoing conventional APE. A delay in initiating adjuvant chemotherapy of more than 12 weeks was seen in 4 patients (19%) following ELAPE. The incidence of perineal wound complications following ELAPE in this study was comparable to that reported in literature. Although the hospital stay following ELAPE was significantly longer than that following conventional APE in our institution, it did not unduly prolong initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy. Improving the perineal reconstruction techniques and selecting patients who will benefit from ELAPE may help to reduce the wound complications.

Indexed as

Circumferential resection margin (CRM)Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE)Gluteal muscle flapIntra-op perforation (IOP)Perineal wound complications

Identifiers

PMID29887703
PMCPMC5984859
OpenAlexW2804013870

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.