» Articles » PMID: 34869567

Postoperative MRI Findings Following Conventional and Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision in Low Rectal Cancer

Overview
Journal Front Surg
Specialty General Surgery
Date 2021 Dec 6
PMID 34869567
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The disparity in outcomes for low rectal cancer may reflect differences in operative approach and quality. The extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) was developed to reduce margin involvement in low rectal cancers by widening the excision of the conventional abdominoperineal excision (c-APE) to include the posterior pelvic diaphragm. This study aimed to determine the prevalence and localization of inadvertent residual pelvic diaphragm on postoperative MRI after intended ELAPE and c-APE. A total of 147 patients treated with c-APE or ELAPE for rectal cancer were included. Postoperative MRI was performed on 51% of the cohort ( = 75) and evaluated with regard to the residual pelvic diaphragm by a radiologist trained in pelvic MRI. Patient records, histopathological reports, and standardized photographs were assessed. Pathology and MRI findings were evaluated independently in a blinded fashion. Additionally, preoperative MRIs were evaluated for possible risk factors for margin involvement. Magnetic resonance imaging-detected residual pelvic diaphragm was identified in 45 (75.4%) of 61 patients who underwent ELAPE and in 14 (100%) of 14 patients who underwent c-APE. An increased risk of margin involvement was observed in anteriorly oriented tumors with 16 (22%) of 73 anteriorly oriented tumors presenting with margin involvement vs. 7 (9%) of 74 non-anteriorly oriented tumors ( = 0.038). Residual pelvic diaphragm following abdominoperineal excision can be depicted by postoperative MRI. Inadvertent residual pelvic diaphragm (RPD) was commonly found in the series of patients treated with the ELAPE technique. Anterior tumor orientation was a risk factor for circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement regardless of surgical approach.

References
1.
Salerno G, Daniels I, Moran B, Heald R, Thomas K, Brown G . Magnetic resonance imaging prediction of an involved surgical resection margin in low rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009; 52(4):632-9. DOI: 10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181a0a37e. View

2.
Heald R, Moran B, Ryall R, Sexton R, Macfarlane J . Rectal cancer: the Basingstoke experience of total mesorectal excision, 1978-1997. Arch Surg. 1998; 133(8):894-9. DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.133.8.894. View

3.
Marr R, Birbeck K, Garvican J, Macklin C, Tiffin N, Parsons W . The modern abdominoperineal excision: the next challenge after total mesorectal excision. Ann Surg. 2005; 242(1):74-82. PMC: 1357707. DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000167926.60908.15. View

4.
Kontovounisios C, Tekkis P, Bello F . 3D imaging and printing in pelvic colorectal cancer: 'The New Kid on the Block'. Tech Coloproctol. 2019; 23(2):171-173. PMC: 6440928. DOI: 10.1007/s10151-018-1922-y. View

5.
Klein M, Colov E, Gogenur I . Similar long-term overall and disease-free survival after conventional and extralevator abdominoperineal excision-a nationwide study. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016; 31(7):1341-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00384-016-2596-4. View