Dataset Information

Quantifying displacement of urogenital organs after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

This study aimed to quantify displacement of urogenital organs after abdominoperineal resection (APR), and to explore patient and treatment characteristics associated with displacement.

Method

Patients from 16 centres who underwent APR for primary or recurrent rectal cancer (2001-2018) with evaluable preoperative and 6-18 months postoperative radiological imaging were included in the study. Anatomical landmarks on sagittal images were related to a coordinate system based on reference lines between fixed bony structures and absolute displacements were calculated using the Pythagorean theorem. Rotation of landmarks was measured relative to a pubic-S5 reference line.

Results

There were 248 patients included of which 171 were men and 77 women. The median displacement of the internal urethral orifice was 25 mm in men (maximum 65), and 17 mm in women (maximum 50). Rotation of the internal urethral orifice was in a caudal direction in 160/170 (94%) of men and 65/73 (89%) of women, with a median of 32 degrees (maximum 85) and 33 degrees (maximum 83), respectively. Displacements of the posterior bladder wall, distal end of prostatic urethra and cervix were significantly correlated with the internal urethral orifice. In linear regression analysis, biological mesh reconstruction of the pelvic floor and visceral interposition were significantly associated with increased displacement of the internal urethral orifice, and female gender and any filling of the presacral space with decreased displacement.

Conclusions

Substantial absolute displacement and rotation of urogenital organs after APR for rectal cancer were observed, but with high variability among both men and women, and being significantly associated with reconstructive interventions.

SUBMITTER: Sharabiany S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9291959 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe long-term effects of radical resection on quality of life may influence the treatment selection. The objective of this study was to determine whether abdominoperineal resection has a better effect on the quality of life than sphincter preservation surgery at 3 years after surgery.MethodsThis prospective, cohort study included patients who underwent radical resection for low rectal cancer. The primary outcomes were European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and CR38 quality of life scores 3 years after surgery, which were compared with linear generalised estimating equations, after adjustment for baseline values, a time effect, and an interaction effect between time and treatment. The secondary outcomes included sexual-urinary functions and oncological outcomes. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01461525).FindingsBetween December 2011 and August 2016, 342 patients were enrolled: 268 (78•4%) underwent sphincter preservation surgery and 74 (21•6%) underwent abdominoperineal resection. The global quality of life scores did not differ between sphincter preservation surgery and abdominoperineal resection groups (adjusted mean difference, 4•2 points on a 100-point scale; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1•3 to 9•7, p = 0•1316). Abdominoperineal resection was associated with a worse body image (9•8 points; 95% CI, 2•9 to 16•6, p = 0•0052), micturition symptoms (-8•0 points; 95% CI, -14•1 to -1•8, p = 0•0108), male sexual problems (-19•9 points; 95% CI, -33•1 to -6•7, p = 0•0032), less confidence in getting and maintaining an erection in males (0•5 points on a 5-point scale; 95% CI, 0•1 to 0•8, p = 0•0155), and worse urinary symptoms (-5•4 points on a 35-point scale; 95% CI, -8•0 to -2•7, p < 0•0001). The 5-year overall survival was worse with abdominoperineal resection in unadjusted (92•2% vs 80•9%; difference 11•3%, hazard ratio 2•38; 95% CI, 1•27 to 4•46, p = 0•0052), but did not differ after adjustment.InterpretationIn this long-term prospective study, abdominoperineal resection failed to meet the superiority to sphincter preservation surgery in terms of quality of life. Although the global quality of life scores did not differ between groups, this study suggests that sphincter preservation surgery can be an acceptable alternative to abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer, offering a better quality of life and sexual-urinary functions, with no increased oncological risk even after 3 years.FundingSeoul National University Bundang Hospital, Korea.

Project description:Primary perineal wound closure after conventional abdominoperineal resection (cAPR) for rectal cancer has been the standard of care for many years. Since the introduction of neo-adjuvant radiotherapy and the extralevator APR (eAPR), oncological outcome has been improved, but at the cost of increased rates of perineal wound healing problems and perineal hernia. This has progressively increased the use of biological meshes, although not supported by sufficient evidence. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of pelvic floor reconstruction using a biological mesh after standardized eAPR with neo-adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy compared to primary perineal wound closure.In this multicentre randomized controlled trial, patients with a clinical diagnosis of primary rectal cancer who are scheduled for eAPR after neo-adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy will be considered eligible. Exclusion criteria are prior radiotherapy, sacral resection above S4/S5, allergy to pig products or polysorbate, collagen disorders, and severe systemic diseases affecting wound healing, except for diabetes. After informed consent, 104 patients will be randomized between standard care using primary wound closure of the perineum and the experimental arm consisting of suturing a biological mesh derived from porcine dermis in the pelvic floor defect, followed by perineal closure similar to the control arm. Patients will be followed for one year after the intervention and outcome assessors and patients will be blinded for the study treatment. The primary endpoint is the percentage of uncomplicated perineal wound healing, defined as a Southampton wound score of less than II on day 30. Secondary endpoints are hospital stay, incidence of perineal hernia, quality of life, and costs.The BIOPEX-study is the first randomized controlled multicentre study to determine the additive value of using a biological mesh for perineal wound closure after eAPR with neo-adjuvant radiotherapy compared to primary perineal wound closure with regard to perineal wound healing and the occurrence of perineal hernia.NCT01927497 (Clinicaltrial.gov).