Better operative outcomes achieved with the prone jackknife vs. lithotomy position during abdominoperineal resection in patients with low rectal cancer

World Journal of Surgical Oncology

Peng Gong³  Zhongyu Wang³  Chunyan Li¹  Yulin Wang³  Li Ma²  Jian Zhang³  Xianbin Zhang³  Haidong Bao³  Peng Liu³ 

[1] Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, 222 Zhongshan Road, Dalian, 116011, China;Department of Epidemiology, Dalian Medical University, 9 Lvshun Road South, Dalian, 116044, China;Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, 222 Zhongshan Road, Dalian, 116011, China

关键词: Prone jackknife position;    Lithotomy position;    Abdominoperineal resection;    Rectal cancer;   

Others  :  1131499
DOI  :  10.1186/s12957-015-0453-5

 received in 2014-07-02, accepted in 2015-01-08,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Lithotomy (LT) and prone jackknife positions (PJ) are routinely used for abdominoperineal resection (APR). The present study compared the clinical, pathological, and oncological outcomes of PJ-APR vs. LT-APR in low rectal cancer patients in order to confirm which position will provide more benefits to patients undergoing APR.

Methods

This is a retrospective study of consecutive patients with low rectal cancer who underwent curative APR between January 2002 and December 2011. Patients were matched 1:2 (PJ-APR = 74 and LT-APR = 37 patients) based on gender and age. Perioperative data, postoperative outcomes, and survival were compared between the two approaches.

Results

Hospital stay was shorter with PJ-APR compared with LT-APR (P < 0.05). Compared with LT-APR, duration of anesthesia (234 ± 50.8 vs. 291 ± 69 min, P = 0.022) and surgery (183 ± 44.8 vs. 234 ± 60 min, P = 0.016) was shorter with PJ-APR, and estimated blood losses were smaller (549 ± 218 vs. 674 ± 350 mL, P < 0.001). Blood transfusions were required in 37.8% of LT-APR patients and in 8.1% of PJ-APR patients (P < 0.001). There was no difference in the distribution of N stages (P = 0.27). Median follow-up was 47.1 (13.6–129.7) months. Postoperative complications were reported by fewer patients after PJ-APR compared with LT-APR (14.9% vs. 32.4%, P = 0.030). There were no significant differences in overall survival, disease-free survival, local recurrence, and distant metastasis (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

The PJ position provided a better exposure for low rectal cancer and had a lower operative risk and complication rates than LT-APR. However, there was no difference in rectal cancer prognosis between the two approaches. PJ-APR might be a better choice for patients with low rectal cancer.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Liu et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Tilney HS, Heriot AG, Purkayastha S, Antoniou A, Aylin P, Darzi AW, et al.: A national perspective on the decline of abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2008, 247:77-84.
• [2]Engel AF, Oomen JL, Eijsbouts QA, Cuesta MA, van de Velde CJ: Nationwide decline in annual numbers of abdomino-perineal resections: effect of a successful national trial? Color Dis. 2003, 5:180-4.
• [3]Martling AL, Holm T, Rutqvist LE, Moran BJ, Heald RJ, Cedemark B: Effect of a surgical training programme on outcome of rectal cancer in the County of Stockholm. Stockholm Colorectal Cancer Study Group. Basingstoke Bowel Cancer Research Project. Lancet 2000, 356:93-6.
• [4]Kim JS, Hur H, Kim NK, Kim YW, Cho SY, Kim JY, et al.: Oncologic outcomes after radical surgery following preoperative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced lower rectal cancer: abdominoperineal resection versus sphincter-preserving procedure. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009, 16:1266-73.
• [5]Law WL, Chu KW: Abdominoperineal resection is associated with poor oncological outcome. Br J Surg. 2004, 91:1493-9.
• [6]Collins DC: End-results of the Miles’ combined abdominoperineal resection versus the segmental anterior resection. A 25-year postoperative follow-up in 301 patients. Am J Proctol 1963, 14:258-61.
• [7]Rothenberger DA, Wong WD: Abdominoperineal resection for adenocarcinoma of the low rectum. World J Surg. 1992, 16:478-85.
• [8]Dehni N, McFadden N, McNamara DA, Guiguet M, Tiret E, Parc R: Oncologic results following abdominoperineal resection for adenocarcinoma of the low rectum. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003, 46:867-74.
• [9]Kim JC, Yu CS, Lim SB, Kim CW, Kim JH, Kim TW: Abdominoperineal resection and low anterior resection: comparison of long-term oncologic outcome in matched patients with lower rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2013, 28:493-501.
• [10]Roig-Vila JV, García-Armengol J, Bruna-Esteban M, Redondo-Cano C, Tornero-Ibáñez F, García-Aguadob R: Operating position in colorectal surgery. The importance of the basics. CIR ESP 2009, 86:204-12.
• [11]West NP, Anderin C, Smith KJ, Holm T, Quirke P: European Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision Study G. Multicentre experience with extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer. Br J Surg 2010, 97:588-99.
• [12]Anderin C, Granath F, Martling A, Holm T: Local recurrence after prone versus supine abdomino-perineal excision for low rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 2013, 15:812-5.
• [13]Showalter SL, Kelz RR, Mahmoud NN: Effect of technique on postoperative perineal wound infections in abdominoperineal resection. Am J Surg 2013, 206:80-5.
• [14]de Campos-Lobato LF, Stocchi L, Dietz DW, Lavery IC, Fazio VW, Kalady MF: Prone or lithotomy positioning during an abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer results in comparable oncologic outcomes. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011, 54:939-46.
• [15]Heald RJ: The ‘Holy Plane’ of rectal surgery. J R Soc Med. 1988, 81:503-8.
• [16]Johar RS, Smith RP: Assessing gravimetric estimation of intraoperative blood loss. J Gynecol Surg. 1993, 9:151-4.
• [17]Marr R, Birbeck K, Garvican J, Macklin CP, Tiffin N, Parsons WJ, et al.: The modern abdominoperineal excision: the next challenge after total mesorectal excision. Ann Surg. 2005, 242:74-82.
• [18]Chuwa EW, Seow-Choen F: Outcomes for abdominoperineal resections are not worse than those of anterior resections. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006, 49:41-9.
• [19]Perry WB, Connaughton JC: Abdominoperineal resection: how is it done and what are the results? Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2007, 20:213-20.
• [20]Murrell ZA, Dixon MR, Vargas H, Arnell TD, Kumar R, Stamos MJ: Contemporary indications for and early outcomes of abdominoperineal resection. Am Surg. 2005, 71:837-40.
• [21]Molina Rodriguez JL, Flor-Lorente B, Frasson M, Garcia-Botello S, Esclapez P, Espi A, et al.: Low rectal cancer: abdominoperineal resection or low Hartmann resection? A postoperative outcome analysis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011, 54:958-62.
• [22]Pocard M, Zinzindohoue F, Haab F, Caplin S, Parc R, Tiret E: A prospective study of sexual and urinary function before and after total mesorectal excision with autonomic nerve preservation for rectal cancer. Surgery. 2002, 131:368-72.
• [23]Bullard KM, Trudel JL, Baxter NN, Rothenberger DA: Primary perineal wound closure after preoperative radiotherapy and abdominoperineal resection has a high incidence of wound failure. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005, 48:438-43.
• [24]de Haas WG, Miller MJ, Temple WJ, Kroll SS, Schusterman MA, Reece GP, et al.: Perineal wound closure with the rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap after tumor ablation. Ann Surg Oncol. 1995, 2:400-6.
• [25]Chambers W, Khan A, Waters R, Lindsey I, George B, Mortensen N, et al.: Examination of outcome following abdominoperineal resection for adenocarcinoma in Oxford. Colorectal Dis. 2010, 12:1192-7.
• [26]Tekkis PP, Heriot AG, Smith J, Thompson MR, Finan P, Stamatakis JD: Comparison of circumferential margin involvement between restorative and nonrestorative resections for rectal cancer. Color Dis. 2005, 7:369-74.
• [27]Williams NS, Johnston D: Survival and recurrence after sphincter saving resection and abdominoperineal resection for carcinoma of the middle third of the rectum. Br J Surg. 1984, 71:278-82.
• [28]Williams NS, Durdey P, Johnston D: The outcome following sphincter-saving resection and abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 1985, 72:595-8.
• [29]Adam IJ, Mohamdee MO, Martin IG, Scott N, Finan PJ, Johnston D, et al.: Role of circumferential margin involvement in the local recurrence of rectal cancer. Lancet. 1994, 344:707-11.
• [30]Birbeck KF, Macklin CP, Tiffin NJ, Parsons W, Dixon MF, Mapstone NP, et al.: Rates of circumferential resection margin involvement vary between surgeons and predict outcomes in rectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg. 2002, 235:449-57.
• [31]Nagtegaal ID, Quirke P: What is the role for the circumferential margin in the modern treatment of rectal cancer? J Clin Oncol. 2008, 26:303-12.