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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of gastrointestinal surgery 2021-10, Vol.25 (10), p.2668-2678 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
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 & 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</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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing & 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 |