Barberousse C, Santiago P, Costa JM, Carriquiry L, Jacobo Ó

Language: Spanish
References: 12
Page: 111-115
PDF size: 474.89 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The higher rate of locoregional recurrence of abdominoperineal excision (APE) in relation to low anterior resection (LAR) for the treatment of low rectal cancer is due to insufficient lateral resection margins during the first procedure. Aiming to improve cancer tumors results in this topography, several variants of the APE procedure are described. These include the “extended posterior perineal approach” which among other things allows better tumor dissection especially anteriorly.
Material and methods: Three cases of patients in whom this procedure was performed are presented.
Discussion: The basics of the procedure and its most important technical aspects are analyzed.
Conclusion: The extended posterior perineal approach for low rectal cancer facilitates anterior dissection improving circumferential resection margin and reducing the risk of tumor opening, resulting in a lower risk of loco regional recurrence.

REFERENCES

1. Miles WE. A method of performing abdominoperineal excision for carcinoma of the rectum and of the terminal portion of the pelvic colon. Lancet. 1908;2:1812-1813.

2. Quirke P, Dixon MF. The prediction of local recurrence in rectal adenocarcinoma by histopathological examination. Int J Colorrectal Dis. 1988;3:127-131.

3. Heald RJ, Husband EM, Ryall RD. The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery. The clue to pelvic recurrence? Br J Surg. 1982;69:613-616.

4. Wibe A, Syse A, Andersen E et al. Oncologic outcomes after total mesorectal excision for cure for cancer of the lower rectum. Anterior versus abdominoperineal resection. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47:48-58.

5. Eriksen M, Wibe A, Syse A et al. Inadvertent perforation during rectal cancer resection in Norway. Br J Surg. 2004;91(2):210-216.

6. Holm T, Ljung A, Burell T et al. Extended abdominoperineal resection with gluteus maximus flap reconstruction of the pelvic floor for rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2007;94:232-238.

7. Tekkis P, Heriot A, Smith J et al. Comparison of circumferential margin involvement between restorative and nonrestorative resection for rectal cancer. Col Disease. 2005;7:369-374.

8. Nagtegaal ID, van de Velde CJH, Marijnen CA et al. Low rectal cancer: a call for a change of approach in abdominoperineal resection. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:9257-9264.

9. Dulk MD, Marijen CA, Putter H et al. Risk factors for adverse outcome in patients with rectal cancer treated with an abdominoperineal resection in the total mesorectal excision trial. Ann Surg. 2007;246(1):83-90.

10. Marr R, Birbeck K, Garvican J et al. The modern abdominoperineal excision. The next challenge after total mesorectal excision. Ann Surg. 2005;242(1):74-81.

11. Jacobo O, Canessa C, Carriquiry C. Colgajo músculo cutáneo de recto abominaltranspélvico para reconstrucción perineal. Cir Plást Iberlatinamer. 2003;29(2):137-141.

12. Canessa C, Segura D, Jacobo O, Gómez del Valle M, Pérez G. Reconstrucción perineal con colgajo músculo cutáneo de recto abdominal. Cir Uruguay. 2003;73(2):170-174.