Randomized clinical trial of conventional versus cylindrical abdominoperineal resection for locally advanced lower rectal cancer

BackgroundAn alternative treatment for low rectal cancer is the cylindrical technique. We aim to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing conventional abdominoperineal resection (APR) versus cylindrical APR.MethodsA prospective, randomized, open-label, parallel controlled trial was conducted between January 2008 and December 2010. Sixty-seven patients with T3-T4 low rectal cancer were identified during the study period (conventional n = 32, cylindrical n = 35).ResultsPatients who received cylindrical APR had less operative time for the perineal portion (P < .001), larger perineal defect (P < .001), less intraoperative blood loss (P = .001), larger total cross-sectional tissue area (P < .001), similar total operative time (P = .096), and more incidence of perineal pain (P < .001). The local recurrence of the cylindrical APR group was improved statistically (P = .048).ConclusionsCylindrical APR in the prone jackknife position has the potential to reduce the risk of local recurrence without increased complications when compared with conventional APR in the lithotomy position for the treatment of low rectal cancer.