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.

Perineal-First Approach in Robotic Abdominoperineal Resection

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

A novel anterior approach toward robotic radical prostatectomy is associated with earlier continence recovery than the conventional approach

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

Application of the advance incision in robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectal anterior resection

Experience of the Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy via Completely Posterior and Intrafascial Approach: A Report of 5 Cases

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

A novel anterior approach that involves Retzius space development between the umbilical ligaments is associated with a lower incidence of postoperative inguinal hernia in robotic radical prostatectomy

The Vertical Profunda Artery Perforator Flap for Perineal Reconstruction

Personalized Decisional Algorithms for Soft Tissue Defect Reconstruction after Abdominoperineal Resection for Low-Lying Rectal Cancers

Advantages of robotic surgery for rectal cancer compared to laparoscopic surgery: pelvic anatomy and its impact on urinary dysfunction

Robotic surgery after total neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer: pitfalls of beyond total mesorectal excision for patients with sidewall invasion

[Anatomical key points and operative principle of "two planes and four landmarks" in extralevator abdominoperineal excision]

Robotic vs laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: A propensity score matching cohort study and meta-analysis

Randomized Clinical Trial of Conventional Versus Cylindrical Abdominoperineal Resection for Locally Advanced Lower Rectal Cancer

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

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

Robot-Assisted Pancreaticoduodenectomy Using the Anterior Superior Mesenteric Artery-First Approach for Pancreatic Cancer

Evaluating the Impact of Robotic IPAA

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