Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention (아시아태평양암예방학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Outcomes of Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Resection in Low Rectal Cancer Using Different Pelvic Drainages

  • Chen, Yu-Sheng (General Surgery Department, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University) ;
  • Bo, Xiao-Bo (General Surgery Department, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University) ;
  • Gu, Da-Yong (General Surgery Department, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University) ;
  • Gao, Wei-Dong (General Surgery Department, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University) ;
  • Sheng, Wei-Zhong (General Surgery Department, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University) ;
  • Zhang, Bo (General Surgery Department, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University)
  • Published : 2015.02.04
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to establish the feasibility and efficiency of different pelvic drainage routes after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (LAPR) for rectal cancer by assessing short-term outcomes. Materials and Methods: Clinicopathological data of 76 patients undergoing LAPR for very low rectal cancer were reviewed retrospectively between June 2005 and June 2014. Outcomes were evaluated considering short-term results. Results: Of 76 relevant patients at our institution in the period of study, trans-perineal drainage of the pelvic cavity was performed in 17 cases. Compared with the trans-perineal group, the length of hospital stay was shorter in the trans-abdominal group, while the duration of drainage and the infection rates of the perineal wounds between two groups showed no significant differences. Conclusions: The outcomes of this study suggest that trans-abdominal drainage of pelvic cavity is a reliable and feasible procedure, the duration of drainage, infection rates and the healing rates of the perineal wounds being acceptable. Trans-abdominal drainage has a more satisfactory effect after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal carcinoma.

Keywords

References

  1. Gezen C, Altuntas YE, Kement M, et al (2012). Laparoscopic and conventional resections for low rectal cancers: a retrospective analysis on perioperative outcomes, sphincter preservation, and oncological results. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 22, 625-30. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2011.0479
  2. Gong JP, Yang L, Huang XE, et al (2014). Outcomes based on risk assessment of anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 707-12. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.2.707
  3. Green BL, Marshall HC, Collinson F, et al (2013). Long-term follow-up of the medical research council CLASICC trial of conventional versus laparoscopically assisted resection in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg, 100, 75-82. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.8945
  4. Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, et al (2005). Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 365, 1718-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66545-2
  5. Heald RJ, Husband EM, Ryall RD(1982). The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery-the clue to pelvic recurrence? Br J Surg, 69, 613-6. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800691019
  6. Jatzko GR, Lisborg PH, Wette VM (1996). Extraperitonealization of the anastomosis and sacral drain in restorative surgery for rectal carcinoma: a safety mechanism in the absence of a covering stoma. Surg Today, 26, 591-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00311662
  7. Jayne DG, Guillou P J, Thorpe H, et al (2007). Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. J Clin Oncol, 25, 3061-8. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.09.7758
  8. Kellokumpu I, Vironen J, Kairaluoma M, et al(2012). Quality of surgical care, local recurrence, and survival in patients with low- and midrectal cancers following multimodal therapy. Int J Colorectal Dis, 27, 111-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-011-1322-5
  9. Law WL, Lee YM, Choi HK, et al (2007). Impact of laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer on operative outcomes and survival. Ann Surg, 245, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000218170.41992.23
  10. MacFarlane JK, Ryall RD, Heald RJ (1993). Mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet, 341, 457-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(93)90207-W
  11. Merad F, Hay JM, Fingerhut A, et al (1999). Is prophylactic pelvic drainage useful after elective rectal or anal anastomosis? A multicenter controlled randomized trial. French Association for Surgical Research. Surgery, 125, 529-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039-6060(99)70205-9
  12. Murrell ZA, Dixon MR, Vargas H, et al (2005).Contemporary indications for and early outcomes of abdominoperineal resection. Am Surg, 71, 837-40.
  13. Schiphorst AH, Doeksen A, Hamaker ME, et al (2014). Shortterm follow-up after laparoscopic versus conventional total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer in a large teaching hospital. Int J Colorectal Dis, 29, 117-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-013-1768-8
  14. Simorov A, Reynoso JF, Dolghi O, et al (2011). Comparison of perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open abdominoperineal resection. Am J Surg, 202, 666-70, 670-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2011.06.029
  15. Van der Pas MH, Haglind E, Cuesta MA, et al(2013). Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol, 14, 210-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70016-0
  16. Veldkamp R, Kuhry E, Hop WC, et al (2005). Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol, 6, 477-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(05)70221-7
  17. Zhang FW, Zhou ZY, Wang HL, et al(2014). Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 9985-96 https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.22.9985