Efficacy of Pelvic Peritoneum Closure After Laparoscopic Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision for Rectal Cancer

Background The descent of the small bowel into the pelvic dead space after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) presents a higher risk for postoperative complications. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of pelvic peritoneum closure in preventing the small bowel from...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of gastrointestinal surgery 2021-10, Vol.25 (10), p.2668-2678
Hauptverfasser: Shen, Yu, Yang, Tinghan, Zeng, Hanjiang, Meng, Wenjian, Wang, Ziqiang
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2678
container_issue 10
container_start_page 2668
container_title Journal of gastrointestinal surgery
container_volume 25
creator Shen, Yu
Yang, Tinghan
Zeng, Hanjiang
Meng, Wenjian
Wang, Ziqiang
description Background The descent of the small bowel into the pelvic dead space after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) presents a higher risk for postoperative complications. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of pelvic peritoneum closure in preventing the small bowel from descending into the pelvic dead space and the potential consequences of this approach. Methods Patients with rectal cancer undergoing laparoscopic ELAPE from March 2014 to January 2019 were retrospectively investigated. Closure of the pelvic peritoneum (CPP) was routinely performed unless it was not feasible. All patients with pelvic peritoneum reconstruction were included in the CPP group, and patients without pelvic peritoneum reconstruction were included in the no-CPP group. The main outcomes included the incidences of the small bowel descending into the retro-urogenital space (space between the bladder/uterus and the sacrum on axial CT scans), perineal wound complications, perineal hernia, and small bowel obstruction (SBO). Results Of the 100 patients included, 79 received CPP, and 21 did not. Fewer patients with pelvic peritoneum closure had small bowels residing in the retro-urogenital space than patients without closure (17.7% vs 42.9%, p =0.014). The incidence of SBO was also lower in the CPP group (7.6% vs. 23.8%, p =0.034). Multivariable analysis showed that no-CPP ( p =0.014) was an independent risk factor for the small bowel descending into the retro-urogenital space. Conclusion CPP may prevent the small bowel from descending into the retro-urogenital dead space in patients undergoing laparoscopic ELAPE without increasing the incidence of perineal wound complications. Prospective studies are warranted to confirm the efficacy of CPP in preventing SBO and perineal hernia.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11605-021-05046-6
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2550264657</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2582892206</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-141368aa139ed1b8181404515f182fe43bfaf59f46841f681f5243b8a12525713</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUFr3DAQhUVpaNK0fyCHYMilFzcaWZLl47JsmsJCQkigN6HVjoqDbTmSvST_PpNs2kIOPY2Y970ZMY-xE-DfgfP6PANorkouoOSKS13qD-wITF2VUgv9kd68gVIo9euQfc75nnOoOZhP7LCSQspGwRF7WIXQeuefihiKa-x2raeS2ikOOPfFsot5TlgswoSpWLvRpZh9HIlaPU7JdbhzU0zFYrONfTvEkawDuo5U3-Y2DkUg9Qb9RL2lGzymL-wguC7j17d6zO4uVrfLy3J99ePncrEufVWrqQQJlTbOQdXgFjYGDEguFagARgSU1Sa4oJogtZEQtIGgBDWNA6GEqqE6Zt_2c8cUH2bMk-3b7LHr3IBxzpbuwoWWWtWEnr1D7-OcBvodUUaYRgiuiRJ7ytMNcsJgx9T2Lj1Z4PYlELsPxFIg9jUQ-2I6fRs9b3rc_rX8SYCAag9kkobfmP7t_s_YZzSdlVk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2582892206</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Efficacy of Pelvic Peritoneum Closure After Laparoscopic Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision for Rectal Cancer</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Shen, Yu ; Yang, Tinghan ; Zeng, Hanjiang ; Meng, Wenjian ; Wang, Ziqiang</creator><creatorcontrib>Shen, Yu ; Yang, Tinghan ; Zeng, Hanjiang ; Meng, Wenjian ; Wang, Ziqiang</creatorcontrib><description>Background The descent of the small bowel into the pelvic dead space after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) presents a higher risk for postoperative complications. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of pelvic peritoneum closure in preventing the small bowel from descending into the pelvic dead space and the potential consequences of this approach. Methods Patients with rectal cancer undergoing laparoscopic ELAPE from March 2014 to January 2019 were retrospectively investigated. Closure of the pelvic peritoneum (CPP) was routinely performed unless it was not feasible. All patients with pelvic peritoneum reconstruction were included in the CPP group, and patients without pelvic peritoneum reconstruction were included in the no-CPP group. The main outcomes included the incidences of the small bowel descending into the retro-urogenital space (space between the bladder/uterus and the sacrum on axial CT scans), perineal wound complications, perineal hernia, and small bowel obstruction (SBO). Results Of the 100 patients included, 79 received CPP, and 21 did not. Fewer patients with pelvic peritoneum closure had small bowels residing in the retro-urogenital space than patients without closure (17.7% vs 42.9%, p =0.014). The incidence of SBO was also lower in the CPP group (7.6% vs. 23.8%, p =0.034). Multivariable analysis showed that no-CPP ( p =0.014) was an independent risk factor for the small bowel descending into the retro-urogenital space. Conclusion CPP may prevent the small bowel from descending into the retro-urogenital dead space in patients undergoing laparoscopic ELAPE without increasing the incidence of perineal wound complications. Prospective studies are warranted to confirm the efficacy of CPP in preventing SBO and perineal hernia.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1091-255X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-4626</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11605-021-05046-6</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34244951</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Abdomen ; Bladder ; Cancer therapies ; Colorectal cancer ; Female ; Gastroenterology ; Gastrointestinal surgery ; Hernias ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Intestinal obstruction ; Laparoscopy ; Medical imaging ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Original Article ; Pelvis ; Perineum - surgery ; Peritoneum - surgery ; Postoperative Complications - epidemiology ; Postoperative Complications - etiology ; Postoperative Complications - prevention &amp; control ; Proctectomy - adverse effects ; Prostheses ; Rectal Neoplasms - surgery ; Retrospective Studies ; Small intestine ; Surgery ; Surveillance ; Uterus</subject><ispartof>Journal of gastrointestinal surgery, 2021-10, Vol.25 (10), p.2668-2678</ispartof><rights>The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2021</rights><rights>2021. The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.</rights><rights>The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2021.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-141368aa139ed1b8181404515f182fe43bfaf59f46841f681f5243b8a12525713</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-141368aa139ed1b8181404515f182fe43bfaf59f46841f681f5243b8a12525713</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-2874-1535</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11605-021-05046-6$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11605-021-05046-6$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,27925,27926,41489,42558,51320</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34244951$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Shen, Yu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Tinghan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zeng, Hanjiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meng, Wenjian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Ziqiang</creatorcontrib><title>Efficacy of Pelvic Peritoneum Closure After Laparoscopic Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision for Rectal Cancer</title><title>Journal of gastrointestinal surgery</title><addtitle>J Gastrointest Surg</addtitle><addtitle>J Gastrointest Surg</addtitle><description>Background The descent of the small bowel into the pelvic dead space after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) presents a higher risk for postoperative complications. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of pelvic peritoneum closure in preventing the small bowel from descending into the pelvic dead space and the potential consequences of this approach. Methods Patients with rectal cancer undergoing laparoscopic ELAPE from March 2014 to January 2019 were retrospectively investigated. Closure of the pelvic peritoneum (CPP) was routinely performed unless it was not feasible. All patients with pelvic peritoneum reconstruction were included in the CPP group, and patients without pelvic peritoneum reconstruction were included in the no-CPP group. The main outcomes included the incidences of the small bowel descending into the retro-urogenital space (space between the bladder/uterus and the sacrum on axial CT scans), perineal wound complications, perineal hernia, and small bowel obstruction (SBO). Results Of the 100 patients included, 79 received CPP, and 21 did not. Fewer patients with pelvic peritoneum closure had small bowels residing in the retro-urogenital space than patients without closure (17.7% vs 42.9%, p =0.014). The incidence of SBO was also lower in the CPP group (7.6% vs. 23.8%, p =0.034). Multivariable analysis showed that no-CPP ( p =0.014) was an independent risk factor for the small bowel descending into the retro-urogenital space. Conclusion CPP may prevent the small bowel from descending into the retro-urogenital dead space in patients undergoing laparoscopic ELAPE without increasing the incidence of perineal wound complications. Prospective studies are warranted to confirm the efficacy of CPP in preventing SBO and perineal hernia.</description><subject>Abdomen</subject><subject>Bladder</subject><subject>Cancer therapies</subject><subject>Colorectal cancer</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gastroenterology</subject><subject>Gastrointestinal surgery</subject><subject>Hernias</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intestinal obstruction</subject><subject>Laparoscopy</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Pelvis</subject><subject>Perineum - surgery</subject><subject>Peritoneum - surgery</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - etiology</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Proctectomy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Prostheses</subject><subject>Rectal Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Small intestine</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surveillance</subject><subject>Uterus</subject><issn>1091-255X</issn><issn>1873-4626</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kUFr3DAQhUVpaNK0fyCHYMilFzcaWZLl47JsmsJCQkigN6HVjoqDbTmSvST_PpNs2kIOPY2Y970ZMY-xE-DfgfP6PANorkouoOSKS13qD-wITF2VUgv9kd68gVIo9euQfc75nnOoOZhP7LCSQspGwRF7WIXQeuefihiKa-x2raeS2ikOOPfFsot5TlgswoSpWLvRpZh9HIlaPU7JdbhzU0zFYrONfTvEkawDuo5U3-Y2DkUg9Qb9RL2lGzymL-wguC7j17d6zO4uVrfLy3J99ePncrEufVWrqQQJlTbOQdXgFjYGDEguFagARgSU1Sa4oJogtZEQtIGgBDWNA6GEqqE6Zt_2c8cUH2bMk-3b7LHr3IBxzpbuwoWWWtWEnr1D7-OcBvodUUaYRgiuiRJ7ytMNcsJgx9T2Lj1Z4PYlELsPxFIg9jUQ-2I6fRs9b3rc_rX8SYCAag9kkobfmP7t_s_YZzSdlVk</recordid><startdate>20211001</startdate><enddate>20211001</enddate><creator>Shen, Yu</creator><creator>Yang, Tinghan</creator><creator>Zeng, Hanjiang</creator><creator>Meng, Wenjian</creator><creator>Wang, Ziqiang</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2874-1535</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20211001</creationdate><title>Efficacy of Pelvic Peritoneum Closure After Laparoscopic Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision for Rectal Cancer</title><author>Shen, Yu ; Yang, Tinghan ; Zeng, Hanjiang ; Meng, Wenjian ; Wang, Ziqiang</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-141368aa139ed1b8181404515f182fe43bfaf59f46841f681f5243b8a12525713</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Abdomen</topic><topic>Bladder</topic><topic>Cancer therapies</topic><topic>Colorectal cancer</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gastroenterology</topic><topic>Gastrointestinal surgery</topic><topic>Hernias</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intestinal obstruction</topic><topic>Laparoscopy</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Pelvis</topic><topic>Perineum - surgery</topic><topic>Peritoneum - surgery</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - etiology</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Proctectomy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Prostheses</topic><topic>Rectal Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Small intestine</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surveillance</topic><topic>Uterus</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Shen, Yu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Tinghan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zeng, Hanjiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meng, Wenjian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Ziqiang</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of gastrointestinal surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Shen, Yu</au><au>Yang, Tinghan</au><au>Zeng, Hanjiang</au><au>Meng, Wenjian</au><au>Wang, Ziqiang</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Efficacy of Pelvic Peritoneum Closure After Laparoscopic Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision for Rectal Cancer</atitle><jtitle>Journal of gastrointestinal surgery</jtitle><stitle>J Gastrointest Surg</stitle><addtitle>J Gastrointest Surg</addtitle><date>2021-10-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>2668</spage><epage>2678</epage><pages>2668-2678</pages><issn>1091-255X</issn><eissn>1873-4626</eissn><abstract>Background The descent of the small bowel into the pelvic dead space after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) presents a higher risk for postoperative complications. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of pelvic peritoneum closure in preventing the small bowel from descending into the pelvic dead space and the potential consequences of this approach. Methods Patients with rectal cancer undergoing laparoscopic ELAPE from March 2014 to January 2019 were retrospectively investigated. Closure of the pelvic peritoneum (CPP) was routinely performed unless it was not feasible. All patients with pelvic peritoneum reconstruction were included in the CPP group, and patients without pelvic peritoneum reconstruction were included in the no-CPP group. The main outcomes included the incidences of the small bowel descending into the retro-urogenital space (space between the bladder/uterus and the sacrum on axial CT scans), perineal wound complications, perineal hernia, and small bowel obstruction (SBO). Results Of the 100 patients included, 79 received CPP, and 21 did not. Fewer patients with pelvic peritoneum closure had small bowels residing in the retro-urogenital space than patients without closure (17.7% vs 42.9%, p =0.014). The incidence of SBO was also lower in the CPP group (7.6% vs. 23.8%, p =0.034). Multivariable analysis showed that no-CPP ( p =0.014) was an independent risk factor for the small bowel descending into the retro-urogenital space. Conclusion CPP may prevent the small bowel from descending into the retro-urogenital dead space in patients undergoing laparoscopic ELAPE without increasing the incidence of perineal wound complications. Prospective studies are warranted to confirm the efficacy of CPP in preventing SBO and perineal hernia.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>34244951</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11605-021-05046-6</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2874-1535</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1091-255X
ispartof Journal of gastrointestinal surgery, 2021-10, Vol.25 (10), p.2668-2678
issn 1091-255X
1873-4626
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2550264657
source MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Abdomen
Bladder
Cancer therapies
Colorectal cancer
Female
Gastroenterology
Gastrointestinal surgery
Hernias
Hospitals
Humans
Intestinal obstruction
Laparoscopy
Medical imaging
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Original Article
Pelvis
Perineum - surgery
Peritoneum - surgery
Postoperative Complications - epidemiology
Postoperative Complications - etiology
Postoperative Complications - prevention & control
Proctectomy - adverse effects
Prostheses
Rectal Neoplasms - surgery
Retrospective Studies
Small intestine
Surgery
Surveillance
Uterus
title Efficacy of Pelvic Peritoneum Closure After Laparoscopic Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision for Rectal Cancer
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-18T13%3A23%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Efficacy%20of%20Pelvic%20Peritoneum%20Closure%20After%20Laparoscopic%20Extralevator%20Abdominoperineal%20Excision%20for%20Rectal%20Cancer&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20gastrointestinal%20surgery&rft.au=Shen,%20Yu&rft.date=2021-10-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=2668&rft.epage=2678&rft.pages=2668-2678&rft.issn=1091-255X&rft.eissn=1873-4626&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11605-021-05046-6&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2582892206%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2582892206&rft_id=info:pmid/34244951&rfr_iscdi=true