ArticleUpdates in surgery2026
Long-term oncological outcomes of extralevator versus standard abdominoperineal resection with 20 years' experience.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimExtralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) was introduced to improve oncological quality in low rectal cancer surgery by reducing circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity and intraoperative specimen perforation (IOP) compared with standard abdominoperineal resection (s-APR). However, its impact on long-term survival remains unclear. This study aimed to compare s-APR and ELAPE in terms of surgical quality parameters and their effects on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective single-center study included 203 patients with non-metastatic distal rectal adenocarcinoma (0-5 cm from the anal verge) who underwent APR between 2001 and 2020. Patients treated between 2001 and 2009 underwent s-APR (n = 109), whereas those treated between 2010 and 2020 underwent ELAPE (n = 94). Demographic, clinicopathological, and survival data were analyzed. Survival outcomes were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared between groups using the log-rank test.
resultsCRM positivity was significantly lower in the ELAPE group compared with the s-APR group (13.8% vs. 28.4%, p = 0.007). Intraoperative specimen perforation occurred less frequently in the ELAPE group (2.1% vs. 17.4%, p < 0.001). Local recurrence rates were significantly lower following ELAPE (13.4% vs. 26.1%, p = 0.037), whereas distant metastasis rates did not differ significantly between groups (19.5% vs. 12.2%, p = 0.189). Three- and five-year OS rates were 81.1% and 70.3% in the ELAPE group and 74.5% and 63.3% in the s-APR group, respectively, without statistically significant differences (p = 0.241). No significant difference in DFS was observed between the two techniques (p = 0.408).
conclusionELAPE was associated with improved surgical quality, reflected by lower CRM positivity and specimen perforation rates. However, these advantages did not translate into a significant long-term survival benefit.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42616224What 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.