Abstract:AIM:To evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection compared with the open procedure in multimodality management of rectal cancer.METHODS:A total of 106 rectal cancer patients who underwent open abdominoperineal resection (OAPR) were matched with 106 patients who underwent laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (LAPR) in a 1 to 1 fashion, between 2009 and 2013 at Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center. Propensity score matching was carried out based on age, gender, pathological staging of the disease and administration of neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Data regarding preoperative staging, surgical technique, pathological results, postoperative recovery and complications were reviewed and compared between the LAPR and OAPR groups. Perineal closure around the stoma and pelvic floor reconstruction were performed only in OAPR, not in LAPR. Therefore, abdominoperineal resection procedure-specific surgical complications including parastomal hernia and perineal wound complications were compared between the open and laparoscopic procedure. Regular surveillance of the two cohorts was carried out to gather prognostic data. Disease-free survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimate and log-rank test. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients with locally advanced disease treated with preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgical resection.RESULTS:No significant difference was found between the LAPR group and the OAPR group in terms of clinicopathological features. The operation time (180.8 ± 47.8 min vs 172.1 ± 49.2 min, P = 0.190), operative blood loss (93.9 ± 60.0 mL vs 88.4 ± 55.2 mL, P = 0.494), total number of retrieved lymph nodes (12.9 ± 6.9 vs 12.9 ± 5.4, P = 0.974), surgical complications (12.3% vs 15.1%, P = 0.549) and pathological characteristics were comparable between the LAPR and OAPR group, respectively. Compared with OAPR patients, LAPR patients showed significantly shorter postoperative analgesia (2.4 ± 0.7 d vs 2.7 ± 0.6 d, P < 0.001), earlier first flatus (57.3 ± 7.9 h vs 63.5 ± 9.2 h, P < 0.001), shorter urinary drainage time (6.5 ± 3.4 d vs 7.8 ± 1.3 d, P < 0.001), and shorter postoperative admission (11.2 ± 4.7 d vs 12.6 ± 4.0 d, P = 0.014). With regard to APR-specific complications (perineal wound complications and parastomal hernia), there were no significant differences between the two groups. Similar results were found in the 26 pairs of patients administered neoadjuvant chemoradiation in subgroup analysis. During the follow-up period, no port site recurrences were observed.CONCLUSION:Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer is safe, and is associated with earlier recovery and shorter admission time in combination with neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

Revisiting Japanese contributions to abdomino-perineal resection for rectal cancer

Perineal-First Approach in Robotic Abdominoperineal Resection

Transperineal minimally invasive surgery during laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer could improve short-term outcomes: A single-institution retrospective cohort study

Efficacy of transperineal minimally invasive surgery with laparoscopic abdominoperineal excision for lower rectal cancer

Lone-Star retractor perineal exposure method for laparoscopic abdominal perineal resection of rectal cancer

Usefulness of participation of endoscopic surgical skill qualification system-qualified surgeons in laparoscopic high anterior resection

History of pancreatic surgery in Japan: Respect to the Japanese pioneers of pancreatic surgery

Beyond total mesorectal excision: The emerging role of minimally invasive surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer

A new era in surgical oncology: preliminary insights into the hinotori™ surgical robot system's role in rectal surgery using the double bipolar method

Laparoscopic Vs Open Abdominoperineal Resection in the Multimodality Management of Low Rectal Cancers.

Two-Team Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision and En Bloc Resection of the Lateral Pelvic Lymph Nodes, Main Iliac Vessels, and Pelvic Plexus for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer With Lateral Lymph Node Metastasis

A precise approach to robotic intracorporeal rectal transection and hand‐sewn purse‐string anastomosis for low anterior resection

Robot-assisted Vs Laparoscopic Vs Open Abdominoperineal Resections for Low Rectal Cancer: Short-term Outcomes of a Single-Center Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Impact of the endoscopic surgical skill qualification system on conversion to laparotomy after low anterior resection for rectal cancer in Japan (a secondary analysis of the EnSSURE study)

A first case of ileocecal resection using a Senhance Surgical System in Japan

Rectal Obstruction after Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection and Postoperative Treatment That Could Be Treated by Magnet-Compressed Anastomotic Stenosis Restriction Surgery (Second Yamauchi Method)

ADOPTERs of Innovation in a Crisis: The History of Vera Gedroits, Kanehiro Takaki and the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905

Laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection in cadaver surgical training from the combined perspectives of urologists, gastroenterologists and gynecologists improves overall knowledge and technique: initial experience of multidisciplinary cadaver surgical training at a single institution in Japan

Robotic purse-string suture technique for intracorporeal anastomosis using double-stapling technique in robotic resection of rectal and sigmoid colon cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

Employing innovation to enhance the safety and reliability of restorative surgical techniques for patients with familial adenomatous polyposis at a national referral centre

Operative trends following the adoption of nonoperative management of rectal cancer