Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision Improves Overall Survival Compared to Standard Abdominoperineal Excision: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

ABSTRACT Background In advanced low rectal cancer, the surgical technique chosen can affect long‐term oncological outcomes. Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) was developed to improve radicality compared with standard abdominoperineal excision (APE). Although earlier analyses suggested reduced local recurrence and mortality with ELAPE, its survival benefit remains debated, and concerns about wound complications persist. This meta‐analysis compared ELAPE and APE, focusing on oncological outcomes. Methods The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023412308). A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL was performed (April 14, 2023). Comparative studies of ELAPE versus APE were included. Data were synthesized using random‐effects models. For overall survival (OS), disease‐free survival (DFS), and local recurrence‐free survival (LRFS), hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, with individual patient data extracted from Kaplan–Meier curves. Results Thirty‐eight studies, including over 5000 patients, were analyzed. ELAPE reduced mortality by 46% (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40–0.73) and achieved a 5‐year OS of 83% (CI 0.53–0.95) versus 69% (CI 0.40–0.88) for APE. ELAPE improved DFS (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55–0.99), with a 5‐year DFS of 87% (CI 0.50–0.98) compared with 65% (CI 0.24–0.92) for APE. LRFS favored ELAPE but was not significant (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45–1.00). Rates of perineal wound complications did not differ (OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.81–2.40). Conclusion ELAPE improves OS and DFS compared with APE without increasing wound complications. These findings support the broader application of ELAPE in rectal cancer treatment.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery
Published
2026-01-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/ags3.70182
Primary Topic
Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision Improves Overall Survival Compared to Standard Abdominoperineal Excision: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Dániel Sándor Veres, Diana‐Elena Floria, Sarolta Beáta Kávási, Pál Miheller et al.
Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery
Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
article

Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision Improves Overall Survival Compared to Standard Abdominoperineal Excision: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Dániel Sándor Veres, Diana‐Elena Floria, Sarolta Beáta Kávási, Pál Miheller, Anett Rancz, Szabolcs Ábrahám
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background In advanced low rectal cancer, the surgical technique chosen can affect long‐term oncological outcomes. Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) was developed to improve radicality compared with standard abdominoperineal excision (APE). Although earlier analyses suggested reduced local recurrence and mortality with ELAPE, its survival benefit remains debated, and concerns about wound complications persist. This meta‐analysis compared ELAPE and APE, focusing on oncological outcomes. Methods The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023412308). A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL was performed (April 14, 2023). Comparative studies of ELAPE versus APE were included. Data were synthesized using random‐effects models. For overall survival (OS), disease‐free survival (DFS), and local recurrence‐free survival (LRFS), hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, with individual patient data extracted from Kaplan–Meier curves. Results Thirty‐eight studies, including over 5000 patients, were analyzed. ELAPE reduced mortality by 46% (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40–0.73) and achieved a 5‐year OS of 83% (CI 0.53–0.95) versus 69% (CI 0.40–0.88) for APE. ELAPE improved DFS (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55–0.99), with a 5‐year DFS of 87% (CI 0.50–0.98) compared with 65% (CI 0.24–0.92) for APE. LRFS favored ELAPE but was not significant (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45–1.00). Rates of perineal wound complications did not differ (OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.81–2.40). Conclusion ELAPE improves OS and DFS compared with APE without increasing wound complications. These findings support the broader application of ELAPE in rectal cancer treatment.

Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery
Semmelweis University (HU), University of Szeged (HU), Grigore T. Popa University of Medicine and Pharmacy (RO), Toldy Ferenc Kórház (HU), University of Pecs (HU)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 78%
Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.