Short‐term outcomes of pelvic floor peritoneum closure in endoscopic low anterior resection of rectal cancer: A propensity score matching analysis. Issue 1 (12th October 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Chuan, Li; Linfeng, Gao; Hongchang, Liu; Xiaosong, Wang; Huaxing, Luo; Chao, Zhang; Yu, Peiwu; Bo, Tang
• Is Part Of: Journal of surgical oncology. Volume 123:Issue 1(2021)
• Page Start: 271
• Page End: 277
• Publication Date: 2020-10-12
• Subjects: anastomotic leakage -- minimally invasive surgery -- pelvic peritonization -- rectal cancer; Cancer -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Neoplasms -- Periodicals; 616
• DOI: 10.1002/jso.26238
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0022-4790

Abstract

Abstract: Background: The efficacy of pelvic floor peritoneum closure (PC) during endoscopic low anterior resection (E‐LAR) of rectal cancer remains unclear. This study aimed to clarify whether pelvic floor PC affected short‐term outcomes. Methods: The study group comprised patients with the pathologically confirmed diagnosis of rectal cancer who underwent E‐LAR with pelvic floor PC or with no PC (NPC) between January 2013 and December 2018 in Southwest Hospital. After propensity score matching (PSM), 584 patients (292 who underwent PC and 292 who underwent NPC) were evaluated. Postoperative indicators, including the rates of complications, anastomotic leakage (AL), reoperation, and inflammation, were observed in the two groups. Results: No significant difference was observed in the rates of postoperative complications between the PC and NPC groups. The rates of AL were similar (11.3% vs. 9.2%, p = .414). However, the reoperation rate of patients in the PC group was significantly lower than that of patients in the NPC group after AL (36.4% vs. 11.1%, p = .025). The hospital costs were higher in the NPC leakage subgroup ( p = .001). Additionally, the serum C‐reactive protein levels were lower in the PC group on postoperative days (PODs) 1, 3, and 5, whereas procalcitonin levels on POD 1 and 3 were lower in the PC group but did not differ significantly on POD 5. Conclusion: Pelvic peritonization did not affect the rate of complications, especially AL; however, it effectively reduced the reoperation and inflammation rates and reduced hospitalization costs. Other short‐term outcomes were similar, which warrant the increased use of pelvic peritonization in endoscopic surgery.