ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2018
Surgical outcome after standard abdominoperineal resection: A 15-year cohort study from a single cancer centre.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Surgical Techniques for Abdominoperineal Resection for Rectal Cancer: One Size Does Not Fit All.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Australasian ACPGBI risk prediction model for 30-day mortality after colorectal cancer surgery.BJS open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAbdominoperineal resection (APR) is associated with a poorer oncological outcome than anterior resection. This may be due to higher rates of intra-operative perforation and circumferential resection margin involvement. The aim of this study was to audit our short and long-term results of abdominoperineal resection performed using conventional techniques and to compare this with other published series. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective review of all patients who had standard APR between January 2000 and December 2016 in a single institution, Cabrini Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. A total of 163 cases performed by nine different colorectal surgeons for primary rectal adenocarcinoma were identified, with their clinicopathological data analysed.
resultsUsing standard APR, only six patients (3.7%) were found to have a positive circumferential resection margin (CRM). There were two cases of intra-operative perforation (1.2%). Local recurrence rate was 5.6% of patients, with distant recurrence found in 24.9%. Disease-free survival at five years was 73.1%. Five-year overall survival was 66.7%, 67.9% of all deaths were cancer-related.
conclusionShort and long-term outcomes after standard APR in this study were comparable to previous published studies. The CRM rate of 3.7% compares favourably to published positive CRM rates for standard APR which ranged from 6 to 18%. Standard APR remains a viable technique for the treatment of rectal cancer. Patient selection and adequate training remain important factors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.