Abdominoperineal Resection in Prone Versus Supine Position: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Bernardo Fontel Pompeu, Eric Pasqualotto, Beatriz D'Andrea Pigossi, Matheus Reginato Araujo, Lucas Monteiro Delgado, Lucas Soares de Souza Pinto Guedes, Sergio Mazzola Poli de Figueiredo, Fernanda Bellotti Formiga
{"title":"Abdominoperineal Resection in Prone Versus Supine Position: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Bernardo Fontel Pompeu, Eric Pasqualotto, Beatriz D'Andrea Pigossi, Matheus Reginato Araujo, Lucas Monteiro Delgado, Lucas Soares de Souza Pinto Guedes, Sergio Mazzola Poli de Figueiredo, Fernanda Bellotti Formiga","doi":"10.1089/lap.2024.0372","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> Abdominal perineal resection (APR) remains the gold standard for lower rectal cancer involving the anal sphincter. However, the optimal patient position remains unclear. While lithotomy or Lloyd-Davies are commonly used, APR and extra-levator abdominal perineal excision (ELAPE) in a prone jackknife position have been linked to better oncological outcomes. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We searched PubMed, Embase, the Central Register of Clinical Trials, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies published up to February 2024. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> statistics. Statistical analysis was performed with R Software version 4.4.1. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Two RCTs and 26 observational studies, including 4529 patients, were analyzed. Among them, 2249 (49.7%) underwent APR or ELAPE in the prone position and 2280 (50.3%) in the supine position. The prone position was associated with reduced surgical specimen perforation (5.3% versus 9.4%; OR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.39-0.78; <i>P</i> < .001), lower positive circumferential resection margins (CRMs) rates (9.8% versus 14.3%; OR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.53-0.89; <i>P</i> < .001), and decreased intraoperative bleeding (mean difference: -63.7 mL; 95% CI: -104.5, -22.8; <i>P</i> < .01). No significant differences were observed in operative time, urinary retention, urinary injury, wound infections, perineal dehiscence, Clavien-Dindo ≥3, reoperation, local recurrence, distal recurrence, or overall survival. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> The prone position during APR is associated with reduced specimen perforation, lower positive CRM rates, and less intraoperative bleeding without significant differences in other clinical outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":50166,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques","volume":" ","pages":"224-239"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2024.0372","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Abdominal perineal resection (APR) remains the gold standard for lower rectal cancer involving the anal sphincter. However, the optimal patient position remains unclear. While lithotomy or Lloyd-Davies are commonly used, APR and extra-levator abdominal perineal excision (ELAPE) in a prone jackknife position have been linked to better oncological outcomes. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, the Central Register of Clinical Trials, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies published up to February 2024. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. Statistical analysis was performed with R Software version 4.4.1. Results: Two RCTs and 26 observational studies, including 4529 patients, were analyzed. Among them, 2249 (49.7%) underwent APR or ELAPE in the prone position and 2280 (50.3%) in the supine position. The prone position was associated with reduced surgical specimen perforation (5.3% versus 9.4%; OR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.39-0.78; P < .001), lower positive circumferential resection margins (CRMs) rates (9.8% versus 14.3%; OR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.53-0.89; P < .001), and decreased intraoperative bleeding (mean difference: -63.7 mL; 95% CI: -104.5, -22.8; P < .01). No significant differences were observed in operative time, urinary retention, urinary injury, wound infections, perineal dehiscence, Clavien-Dindo ≥3, reoperation, local recurrence, distal recurrence, or overall survival. Conclusion: The prone position during APR is associated with reduced specimen perforation, lower positive CRM rates, and less intraoperative bleeding without significant differences in other clinical outcomes.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
163
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques (JLAST) is the leading international peer-reviewed journal for practicing surgeons who want to keep up with the latest thinking and advanced surgical technologies in laparoscopy, endoscopy, NOTES, and robotics. The Journal is ideally suited to surgeons who are early adopters of new technology and techniques. Recognizing that many new technologies and techniques have significant overlap with several surgical specialties, JLAST is the first journal to focus on these topics both in general and pediatric surgery, and includes other surgical subspecialties such as: urology, gynecologic surgery, thoracic surgery, and more.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信