Surgical Techniques for Abdominoperineal Resection for Rectal Cancer: One Size Does Not Fit All

Clicks: 77
ID: 309767
2022
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Popular

Ranked #4 of 490 articles by views in Frontiers in surgery

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 490 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abdominoperineal resection (APR) of rectal cancer is associated with poorer oncological outcomes than anterior resection. This may be due to higher rates of intra-operative perforation (IOP) and circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement causing higher recurrence rates and surgical complications. To address these concerns, several centres advocated a change in technique from a standard APR to a more radical extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE). Initial reports showed that ELAPE reduced IOP rates and CRM involvement but increased wound complications and longer surgical duration. However, many of these studies had unacceptable rates of IOP and CRM before retraining in ELAPE. This may indicate that it was a sub-optimal surgical technique, which improved upon training, that had influenced the high CRM and IOP rates rather than the technique itself. Subsequent studies demonstrated that the CRM involvement rate for ELAPE was not always lower than for standard APR and, in some cases, significantly higher. The morbidity of ELAPE can be high, with studies reporting higher adverse events than APR, especially in terms of wound complications from the larger perineal incision required in ELAPE. Whether ELAPE improves short- or long-term oncological outcomes for patients has not been clearly demonstrated. The authors propose that all centres performing rectal cancer surgery audit surgical outcomes of patients undergoing APR or ELAPE and examine CRM involvement, IOP rates, and local recurrence rates, preferably through a national body. If rates of adverse technical or oncological outcomes exceed acceptable levels, then retraining in the appropriate surgical techniques may be indicated.
Reference Key
simon2022surgicaltechniquesfo Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Simon Wilkins; Raymond Yap; Shehara Mendis; Peter Carne; Paul J. McMurrick
Journal Frontiers in surgery
Year 2022
DOI
10.3389/fsurg.2022.818097
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.