Extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the short‐term outcome. (June 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Zhou, X.; Sun, T.; Xie, H.; Zhang, Y.; Zeng, H.; Fu, W.
• Is Part Of: Colorectal disease. Volume 17:Number 6(2015)
• Page Start: 474
• Page End: 481
• Publication Date: 2015-06
• Subjects: Colon (Anatomy) -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Rectum -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.34
• DOI: 10.1111/codi.12921
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1462-8910

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" id="codi12921-abs-0001"> <title>Abstract</title> <sec id="codi12921-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <title>Aim</title> <p>The superiority of extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) over conventional abdominoperineal excision (APE) remains controversial, despite the publication of many studies on this issue. The aim of this meta‐analysis was to provide a clear, evidence‐based comparison of the two procedures.</p> </sec> <sec id="codi12921-sec-0002" sec-type="section"> <title>Method</title> <p>A systematic review and meta‐analysis was conducted through a comprehensive search of the PubMed, EMBASE/Medline and Cochrane Central Library databases for all studies comparing ELAPE with conventional APE for low rectal cancer. Pooled data on circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity, intra‐operative bowel perforation, perineal wound complications and local recurrence were analysed.</p> </sec> <sec id="codi12921-sec-0003" sec-type="section"> <title>Results</title> <p>Seven studies, involving a total of 2672 patients, were included. Analysis of the pooled data did not reveal a significant difference between the two operations regarding CRM positivity [risk ratio (RR) = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.40–1.57; <italic>P </italic>=<italic> </italic>0.50, <italic>I</italic><sup>2</sup><italic> </italic>=<italic> </italic>86%] and perineal wound complications (RR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.71–1.16; <italic>P </italic>=<italic> </italic>0.44, <italic>I</italic><sup>2</sup><italic> </italic>=<italic> </italic>49%), and showed a borderline reduced risk of intra‐operative bowel perforation for ELAPE, but still did not reveal a significant difference between the two groups (RR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.37–1.00; <italic>P </italic>=<italic> </italic>0.05, <italic>I</italic><sup>2</sup><italic> </italic>=<italic> </italic>58%).</p> </sec> <sec id="codi12921-sec-0004" sec-type="section"> <title>Conclusion</title> <p>The current evidence does not indicate a statistically significant superiority of ELAPE over conventional APE in terms of CRM positivity and intra‐operative bowel perforation.</p> </sec> </abstract>