Perineal reconstruction after extra-levator abdominoperineal excision (eLAPE): a systematic review

Biosynthetic Mesh Reconstruction after Abdominoperineal Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: Cross Relation of Surgical Healing and Oncological Outcomes: A Multicentric Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Local wound complications are among the most relevant sequelae after an abdominoperineal resection (APR) for low rectal cancer. One of the proposed techniques to improve the postoperative recovery and to accelerate the initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy is the mesh reinforcement of the perineal wound. The aim of the current study is to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes after APR performed with a biosynthetic mesh reconstruction versus the conventional procedure.

METHODS

From 2015 to 2020, in two tertiary centres, the surgical outcomes, the wound events (i.e., surgical site infections, wound dehiscence and the complete healing time) and the oncological outcomes (i.e., time length to start adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy, an over 8-week delay in chemotherapy and the recurrence rate) were retrospectively analysed in patients undergoing APR reinforced with biosynthetic mesh (Group A) and conventional APR (Group B). Results Sixty-one patients were treated with APR (25 in Group A and 36 in Group B). Patients in Group A presented lower time for: healing (16 versus 24 days, p = 0.015), inferior perineal wound dehiscence rates (one versus nine cases, p = 0.033), an earlier adjuvant therapy start (26 versus 70 days, p = 0.003) and a lower recurrence rate (16.6% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.152).

CONCLUSIONS

In our series, the use of a biosynthetic mesh for the neo-perineum reconstruction after a Miles' procedure has resulted in safe, reproducible results affected by limited complications, guarantying a rapid start of the adjuvant therapy with clear benefits in oncological outcomes. Further randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up are needed to validate these results.

Research highlight: surgical outcomes of gluteal VY plasty after extensive abdominoperineal resection or total pelvic exenteration

OBJECTIVE

To describe a suitable alternative technique for reconstruction of the pelvic floor after extensive resection. To review our outcomes of gluteal VY plasty in the reconstruction of the pelvic floor after extensive abdominoperineal resection (conventional or extralevator abdominoperineal resection, total pelvic exenteration, or salvage surgery).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

An academic hospital and tertiary referral centre for the treatment of locally advanced or locally recurrent rectal cancer, and salvage surgery in The Netherlands.

PATIENTS

Forty-one consecutive patients who underwent a pelvic floor reconstruction with gluteal VY plasty at Maastricht University Medical Centre between January 2017 and February 2021 were included. The minimum duration of follow-up was 2 years.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Perineal herniation is the primary outcome measure. Furthermore, the occurrence of minor and major postoperative complications and long-term outcomes were retrospectively assessed.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients (85.4%) developed one or more complications of whom twenty-one patients experienced minor complications and fourteen patients developed major complications. Fifty-seven percent of complications was not related to the VY reconstruction. Six patients (14.6%) recovered without any postoperative complications during follow-up. Three patients developed a perineal hernia.

CONCLUSIONS

A gluteal VY plasty is a suitable technique for reconstruction of the pelvic floor after extensive perineal resections resulting in a low perineal hernia rate, albeit the complication rate remains high in this challenging group of patients.

Analysis of clinical and patient-reported outcomes in post-ELAPE perineal reconstruction with IGAP flap – A 5-year review

Background: Extralevator abdominoperineal excisions (ELAPE) are now the accepted treatment option for low rectal cancers, which result in large perineal defects necessitating reconstruction. The aim of our study was to assess the clinical outcomes as well as the quality-of-life parameters (QOLP) following these reconstructions. Methods: A series of 27 patients who underwent ELAPE and immediate reconstruction with inferior gluteal artery perforator flaps (IGAP) between December 2013 to December 2018 were retrospectively analysed on patient demographics, disease and treatment, complications, and QOLP. Results: With a mean age of 71.6 years, all patients had low rectal cancers and underwent ELAPE (24 open, 3 lap-assisted) and immediate IGAP flap reconstruction. The follow-up period was 1 year. The overall perineal early minor complication rate was 25.9% and the early major complication rate of 14.8%. QOLP, such as tolerance to sit, perineal pain, perineal aesthetics, showed high patient satisfaction of 77.7%, 40.74%, and 66.6%, respectively at 1 year. The perineal hernia rate was 14.8% with all patients being female (p 0.0407; significant). Conclusion: IGAP flaps are a reliable option for reconstructing post-ELAPE defects with good patient satisfaction and outcomes.

A Novel Technique With Ileal Mesentery to Reconstruct the Pelvic Peritoneum After Pelvic Dissection With End Colostomy for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

After abdominoperineal resection, low anterior resection, and end colostomy for lower rectal cancer, it is necessary to reconstruct the pelvic peritoneum to avoid small bowel obstruction, perineal hernia, and radiation enteritis in patients for whom postoperative radiotherapy is planned. However, pelvic peritoneal closure is technically difficult in patients who lack enough peritoneum to cover the defect or have received neoadjuvant radiation and have a rigid pelvis.

IMPACT OF INNOVATION

The impact of this innovation is to reconstruct the pelvic peritoneum with the distal ileal mesentery laparoscopically.

TECHNOLOGY, MATERIALS AND METHODS

After removal of the tumor, the distal ileal mesentery was selected to completely cover the defect. Subsequently, suturing of the ileal mesentery to the posterior wall of the urinary bladder and all sides of the pelvic cavity was performed. Finally, the patients were returned to the headfirst supine position to ensure that there was no small bowel falling into the pelvic dead space.

PRELIMINARY RESULTS

All surgical procedures were successfully performed laparoscopically from January 2019 to April 2021. No perineal complications or intestinal obstructions occurred during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

This novel technique was found to be safe and effective. Moreover, it provided an economical method for the reconstruction of the pelvic peritoneum using autologous material, which could preserve the small intestine in the abdomen to avoid related complications. Additional larger series of patients with longer follow-up are needed to validate the safety and feasibility of this method.

A National Survey on Perineal Reconstruction Following Standard and Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision: Current Practices and Trends in the UK

Background

Challenging perineal defects resulting from extralevator (ELAPE) and standard abdominoperineal excision (APE) have given rise to an emerging multidisciplinary approach between colorectal and plastic surgeons. At present, there is a relative paucity of evidence on best practice. This study sought to assess current national practice concerning perineal reconstruction following APE/ELAPE in the United Kingdom (UK) and to determine the factors involved in reconstruction choice.

Methodology

An anonymised survey was circulated to consultant plastic surgeons at all 48 UK centres performing perineal reconstruction following APE/ELAPE. Responses were collected between October 2021 and April 2022.

Results

Complete responses were received from 24 units nationally. All units had a dedicated APE/ELAPE service. Overall, 70% adopted a standardised reconstructive approach, the most common being the inferior gluteal artery perforator flap (n = 11). Significant variation was identified in the reconstructive technique. Similar differences were observed in the perceived importance of surgical factors guiding the reconstructive decision-making process, the top priorities being the size of the defect and previous radiotherapy.

Conclusions

The variability of responses suggests a lack of national consensus on optimal reconstruction following APE/ELAPE, despite the majority of centres employing a standardised approach to reconstruction. Our study highlights important surgical decision-making factors and provides valuable insight to aid in developing national collaborative evidence-based guidelines on best practice.

Tailored concept for the plastic closure of pelvic defects resulting from extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) or pelvic exenteration

PURPOSE

No standard exists for reconstruction after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) and pelvic exenteration. We propose a tailored concept with the use of bilateral gluteal V-Y advancement flaps in non-extended ELAPE and with vertical myocutaneous rectus abdominis muscle (VRAM) flaps in extended procedures. This retrospective study analyzes the feasibility of this concept.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrieved all consecutive patients after ELAPE or pelvic exenteration for rectal, anal, or vulva cancer with flap repair from a prospective database. Perineal wound complications were defined as the primary endpoint. Outcomes for the two different flap reconstructions were analyzed.

RESULTS

From 2005 to 2021, we identified 107 patients who met the study criteria. Four patients underwent exenteration with VRAM flap repair after previous V-Y flap fashioning. Therefore, we report on 75 V-Y and 36 VRAM flaps. The V-Y group contained more rectal carcinomas, and the VRAM group exhibited more patients with recurrent cancer, more multivisceral resections, and longer operation times. Perineal wound complications occurred in 21.3% in the V-Y group and in 36.1% in the VRAM group (p = 0.097). Adjusted odds ratio for perineal wound complication was not significantly different for the two flap types.

CONCLUSION

Concerning perineal wound complications, our concept yields favorable results for V-Y flap closure indicating that this less invasive approach is sufficient for non-extended ELAPE. Advantages are a shorter operation time, less donor site morbidity, and the option of a second repair. VRAM flaps were reserved for larger wounds after pelvic exenteration or vaginal repair.

Transperineal pelvic drainage combined with lateral position to promote perineal wound healing after abdominoperineal resection: A prospective cohort trial

BACKGROUND

For the rectal cancer <5 cm from anal margin, extralevator abdominoperineal resection (eAPR) has been accepted widely by surgeons. However, the rate of perineal infection following up eAPR is approximately 70%. We did the study with the aim of evaluating the effect and safety of transperineal pelvic drainage combined with lateral position (TPDLP) on perineal wound in patients undergoing eAPR.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to N-TPDLP group (standard arm) or TPDLP group (intervention arm). In the standard arm, surgery was completed after abdominal drainage tube was placed in pelvic. Comparatively, an additional transperineal wound drainage tube was applied in the experimental arm. Postoperatively, patients of both 2 groups were informed not to sit to reduce perineal compression until the perineal wound healed. But lateral position was demanded in the intervention arm. The primary endpoint was the rate of uncomplicated perineal wound healing defined as a Southampton wound score of <2 at 30 days postoperatively. Patients were followed for 6 months.

RESULTS

In total, 60 patients were randomly assigned to standard arm (n = 31) and intervention arm (n = 29). The mean perineal wound healing time was 34.2 (standard deviation [SD] 10.9) days in TPDLP arm, which significantly differ from 56.4 (SD 34.1) in N-TPDLP arm (P = .001). At 30 days postoperatively, 3 (10%) of 29 patients undergoing TPDLP were classified into grade 4 according to Southampton wound score, however, 16 (52%) of 31 patients were classified into grade 4 in control arm, and significantly difference was observed between randomization groups (P = .001). What's more, perineal wound pain was assessed at 30 days postoperatively, and it is discovered that the pain degree of patients in control arm was significantly more severe than the interventive arm (P = .015).

CONCLUSION

In the present study, we found that TPDLP generated a favorable prognosis for perineal wounds with acceptable side-effects.

Partial myocutaneous gluteal flap for perineal reconstruction of extralevator abdominoperineal defects. A single surgeon series of 49 cases in 8 years, and a modification of the technique

INTRODUCTION

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for low rectal tumours necessitates a reliable method of reconstructing the perineum. The senior author developed the partial myocutaneous gluteal (PMG) flap. We present 49 consecutive reconstructions with the refinement of the original procedure.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational review of patients undergoing ELAPE and PMG reconstruction from 2012 to 2019, with at least 1 year follow-up. The procedure was modified iteratively following our original series, to minimise perineal herniation, specifically by greater mobilisation of the inferior gluteus maximus muscle and separation of the muscle and fasciocutaneous components, allowing closure of the defect around the coccygeal remnant. Perineal herniation and wound complications were recorded. Laparoscopic and open resection techniques were compared, as were outcomes before and after modification of the flap.

RESULTS

There were no flap failures in our cohort of 49 patients. Two patients (4%) required return to theatre acutely for perineal wound complications: one wound dehiscence and one flap-related haematoma. Five patients had evidence of perineal hernia, three prior to any modification of the flap and two following. Three had symptoms of which two required elective repair. The flap modifications were made in response to these cases. There were no significant differences in perineal outcomes for laparoscopic versus open, and before and after flap modification.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the last 8 years, we have refined our perineal reconstruction technique following instances of perineal herniation and major wound dehiscence. We believe that the PMG flap provides robust and reliable option for the reconstruction of perineal extralevator abdominoperineal defects.

Perineal hernia repair after abdominoperineal rectal excision with prosthetic mesh-a single surgeon experience

AIM

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer is associated with an increased incidence of perineal hernia. The purpose of this study was to determine clinical outcome following perineal hernia repair with prosthetic mesh by a perineal open approach.

METHODS

We present a case series of 10 patients who underwent 12 repairs of their hernia using a prosthetic mesh placed by a perineal open technique. Patients were identified from a prospectively maintained database and their case records were retrieved along with their imaging and analysed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Perineal hernia incidence in our series is 10%. The median age was 73 ± 5.9 years. No gender predilection was found. The median time interval between extralevator abdominoperineal excision and surgical repair of perineal hernia was 25.3 months. The surgical approach was perineal with the use of a double layer prosthetic mesh. The recurrence ratio was 30% (n = 3). Overall morbidity was also 30% with no major complications (Clavien-Dindo I-II). Recurrence following primary repair was diagnosed in a median time interval of 28.3 ± 16.57 months. Two patients had repeat surgery to treat their recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Our small series supports the use of a prosthetic mesh repair of perineal hernias through a perineal approach. It is safe and effective with complication rates similar to those previously reported.

Optimal postoperative management of perineal flaps in oncologic patients undergoing extralevator abdominoperineal excision: An introduction of a postoperative monitoring and flap management protocol

There is extensive discussion regarding method of perineal defect closure extralevator abdominoperineal excision, but little consideration of optimal postoperative management of the flaps, or use of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery in flap reconstruction. Literature review revealed little discussion of optimum postoperative care of perineal flaps following extralevator abdominoperineal excision. We have developed a protocol for postoperative care of perineal flaps for use in conjunction with colorectal Enhanced Recovery After Surgery pathways, easily followed in units not specialising in plastic surgery. The protocol was developed using translatable evidence from guidelines for flap care from other subspecialties, as well as the experience of management of post-extralevator abdominoperineal excision perineal flaps in our trust, with the aim of enabling early detection of deterioration in this complex cohort, with a multidisciplinary enhanced recovery approach.

Perineal healing following salvage surgery for anal cancer

AIM

Approximately 25% of anal cancer patients undergo abdominoperineal excision or more extensive surgery. Following surgery, a high perineal complication rate has been reported. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is an evidence-based multimodal interventional programme introduced to mitigate the risk of complications. This study aims to describe perineal healing in relation to ERAS compliance, type of resection and method of perineal reconstruction in patients with anal cancer after salvage surgery.

METHOD

This is a retrospective cohort study including all patients undergoing abdominal surgery for squamous cell anal cancer in Stockholm between January 2005 and December 2015. Data collection was from registers supplemented by chart review. All patients were followed until death or 1 year after surgery. The associations between ERAS compliance, patient and treatment characteristics and perineal wound healing were evaluated using logistic regression.

RESULTS

In total, 101 patients (67 women) were included, of whom 72 were ERAS compliant. Of patients alive, healing after surgery occurred in 61/98 and 84/89 at 3 months and 1 year, respectively. Perineal healing at 3 months was statistically significantly associated with younger age and type of perineal reconstruction (in favour of vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap). No associations were observed at 1 year but almost all wounds were healed.

CONCLUSION

Age and type of perineal reconstruction appear to be significantly associated with improved healing at 3 months whereas compliance to an ERAS protocol and type of resection do not. Nearly all patients had a fully healed perineal wound 1 year after surgery for anal cancer.

Comparison of perineal morbidity between biologic mesh reconstruction and primary closure following extralevator abdominoperineal excision: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for rectal cancer leaves a greater perineal defect which might result in significant perineal morbidity, and how to effectively close perineal defects remains a challenge for surgeons. This study aimed to comparatively evaluate the perineal-related complications of biologic mesh reconstruction and primary closure following ELAPE.

METHOD

The electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched to screen out all eligible studies, which compared biologic mesh reconstruction with primary closure for perineal-related complications following ELAPE. Pooled data of perineal-related complications including overall wound complications, hernia, infection, dehiscence, chronic sinus, and chronic pain (12 months after surgery) were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of four studies (one randomized controlled trial and three cohort studies) involving 544 patients (346 biologic mesh vs 198 primary closure) were included. With a median follow-up of 18.5 months (range, 2-71.5 months). Analysis of the pooled data indicated that the perineal hernia rate was significantly lower in biologic mesh reconstruction as compared to primary closure (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.22-0.69; P = 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of total perineal wound complications rate (P = 0.70), as well as rates of perineal wound infection (P = 0.97), wound dehiscence (P = 0.43), chronic sinus (P = 0.28), and chronic pain (12 months after surgery; P = 0.75).

CONCLUSION

Biologic mesh reconstruction after extralevator abdominoperineal excision appears to have a lower hernia rate, with no differences in perineal wound complications.

Perineal wound complication risk factors and effects on survival after abdominoperineal resection of rectal cancer: a single-centre retrospective study

PURPOSE

This study determined the risk factors associated with perineal wound complications (PWCs) and investigated their effect on overall survival in patients with rectal cancer who underwent abdominoperineal resection (APR).

METHODS

The clinicopathologic and follow-up data of patients who underwent APR for primary rectal cancer between 1998 and 2018 were reviewed. PWCs were defined as any perineal wound that required surgical intervention, antibiotics, or delayed healing for more than 2 weeks. The primary objective was identifying the risk factors of PWC after APR. The effect of PWC on survival was also investigated as a secondary objective.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty patients were included in the final analyses and 49 had PWCs. An operative time of > 285 min (odds ratio: 2.440, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.257-4.889) was found to be independently associated with PWCs. When the follow-up time was > 60 months, patients with PWCs had a significantly lower overall survival rate than patients without PWC (n = 156; mean over survival: 187 and 164 months in patients without and with PWCs, respectively; P = 0.045). Poor differentiation (hazard ratio (HR): 1.893, 95% CI: 1.127-3.179), lymph node metastasis (HR: 2.063, 95% CI: 1.228-3.467), and distant metastasis (HR: 3.046, 95% CI: 1.551-5.983) were associated with poor prognosis.

CONCLUSION

Prolonged operative time increases the risk of PWCs, and patients with PWCs have a lower long-term survival rate than patients without PWCs. Therefore, surgeons should aim to reduce the operative time to minimise the risk of PWC in patients undergoing APR for rectal cancer.

Surgical and oncological short-term outcomes of prone extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer

Introduction In recent years, a standardized surgical approach for low rectal cancer was proposed and adopted in many centres. The extralevator abdominoperineal excision introduce an extensive resection of the pelvic floor and demonstrated superiority if the procedure is done in the prone jack-knife position, especially regarding intraoperative perforation and circumferential resections margins. The aim of this study is to evaluate the surgical and oncological short-term outcomes of prone extralevator abdominoperineal excision.

Methods All patients registered in our institution from January 2003 to January 2015 who underwent abdominoperineal resection or prone extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiation were retrospectively included from prospective maintained data base and were compared regarding surgical and oncological outcomes.

Results Eighty-nine patients underwent curative intent resections. Abdominoperineal resection was performed in 67 patients and prone extralevator abdominoperineal excision in 22 patients. There were no statistical significant differences between groups regarding pathological stage, median number of harvested lymph node, intraoperative perforation, circumferential resections margins involvement and recurrence rates. Surgical outcomes were statistically different between groups. Twenty-six patients (29%) developed perineal complications, 21% of the abdominoperineal resection patients and 55% of the prone extralevator abdominoperineal excision (p < 0.001). Most of these complications were due to delayed perineal wound healing (12.4%), and wound abscesses (4.5%). However, the readmission rate and median length of hospital stay was higher in the abdominoperineal resection group (p < 0.001).

Conclusion Prone extralevator abdominoperineal excision is comparable to standard abdominoperineal resection. It was associated to a decrease in length of hospital stay and readmission rate, although more perineal complications occurred. We cannot recommend it as a standard technique for all low rectal cancer. Notwithstanding, prone extralevator abdominoperineal excision can be considered a more radical approach when there is sphincter complex or levators muscles invasion.

Extra-Levator AbdominoPerineal excision (eLAPE): a complicated postoperative perineal hernia

A 75-year-old woman presented with perineal wound dehiscence and small bowel prolapse of a perineal hernia, 6 years after extra-Levator AbdominoPerineal Excision (eLAPE) procedure for rectal cancer. She underwent emergency wound refashioning and perineal hernia repair with Parmacol mesh. Her postoperative recovery was complicated by long-standing ileus, wound infection, and she was discharged to community palliative care services. In this case report, we raise awareness of postoperative eLAPE complications and describe an unfortunate case where a postoperative perineal hernia was not repaired in a patient with multiple comorbidities.

The internal pudendal artery turnover (IPAT) flap: A new, simple and reliable technique for perineal reconstruction

Perineal defects can be a reconstructive challenge following abdomino-perineal excision of the rectum, pelvic exenteration or the excision of severe pilonidal disease. These defects often involve large perineal cavities and pelvic dead space with often poorly mobile soft tissues due to neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Because of the inherent challenges of wound healing in the perineal region, well vascularised and robust reconstruction is mandated. In this paper, we describe a novel perforator-based turnover flap for perineal reconstruction - the internal pudendal artery turnover flap (IPAT flap). The flap requires no visualisation or dissection of perforating vessels, has a reliable vasculature, is quick and straightforward to perform and allows for the effective reconstruction of deep three-dimensional defects following perineal excisions. This is a retrospective study. A cohort of 38 consecutive patients who underwent various reconstructions with the IPAT flap under a single surgeon were included between 2012 and 2019. At three months, 37 flaps were fully healed. There were no flap failures or partial flap losses. Complications were seen in 10 of 38 patients with nine of these being minor and one that requires a return to the theatre for washout secondary to a urinary leak. The Internal Pudendal Artery Turn Over Flap allows us to reconstruct three-dimensional defects following perineal surgery, achieving more significant mobilisation of the flap to fill deep dead space without the added complexity and additional operative time associated with perforator dissection. The IPAT flap can be used in several common perineal reconstructive challenges expeditiously - often at the end of lengthy oncological resections - with minimal donor site morbidity, and in our experience, yields reliable outcomes.

Incisional negative pressure wound therapy to reduce perineal wound infection after abdominoperineal resection

We explored the effects of incisional negative pressure wound therapy in perineal wound infections after abdominoperineal resection. We retrospectively evaluated 146 patients who underwent abdominal perineal resection from December 2004 to December 2019 and compared conventional gauze dressing (controls) with incisional negative pressure wound therapy. We compared patients' characteristics, surgical factors, and perineal infection rates between groups, and patients' characteristics, surgical factors, and negative pressure therapy use between perineal infection vs non-infection groups, as well as the risk factors for perineal infections. In the negative pressure therapy group, compared with controls, the number of men, smoking prevalence, blood transfusion, drainage via the perineal wound, and intraoperative blood loss were significantly lower (p < 0.05, p < 0.05, p < 0.05, p < 0.001, p < 0.01, respectively), and operation time was significantly longer (p < 0.05). Infections were significantly less common in the negative pressure group (p < 0.05). In the univariate analysis, the infection-positive group had significantly higher laparoscopic surgery (p < 0.01) and negative pressure wound therapy-free rates (p < 0.01), and significantly more intraoperative blood loss (p < 0.05). Multivariate analysis using these three factors and preoperative radiotherapy showed that incisional negative pressure wound therapy-free status was a risk factor for infection. Incisional negative pressure wound therapy was beneficial in managing perineal wound infections after abdominoperineal resection.

Vertical rectus abdominis flap (VRAM) for perineal reconstruction following pelvic surgery: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) flap is an established technique employed to reconstruct pelvic and perineal defects not amenable to primary closure. The aim of this study was to systematically review the morbidity of VRAM flap reconstruction following exenterative pelvic surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted by using Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Abstracts of all studies published from inception to November 2019 were identified. Search terms used included 'vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous', 'vertical rectus abdominis musculocutaneous' and 'VRAM'. Only studies that described outcomes when a VRAM flap was used during exenterative pelvic surgery were included; case reports were excluded. The primary outcome measure was VRAM flap morbidity. Secondary outcome measures included donor site morbidity and hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

Sixty-five studies with a total of 1827 patients were identified and included. Perineal reconstruction was most commonly performed following abdominal perineal excision of the rectum (APER) (n = 636 and 34.8%). Median patient age at surgery ranged from 38 to 78 years. Mean perineal flap morbidity was 27%, with a complete flap loss rate of 1.8% and a perineal hernia rate of 0.2%. Mean donor site morbidity was 15%, with an abdominal dehiscence rate of 5.5% and an incisional hernia rate of 3.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

While overall morbidity after VRAM flap reconstruction in pelvic visceral surgery is high; the risk of major complications remains low. These data are important when counselling patients for surgery.

Biological mesh reconstruction versus primary closure for preventing perineal morbidity after extralevator abdominoperineal excision: a multicentre retrospective study

AIM

The aim of the study was to compare the incidence of perineal hernia and the perineal wound morbidity following extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) between two groups - primary perineal closure and reconstruction with a biological mesh.

METHOD

One hundred and forty-seven consecutive patients who underwent ELAPE for primary rectal cancer between January 2007 and December 2018 in two tertiary referral centres were retrospectively identified from prospective databases. Perineal closure was carried out via primary closure or with a biological mesh (porcine dermal collagen mesh). Outcome measures were perineal hernia and perineal wound morbidity (infection, dehiscence, persistent sinus and chronic pain).

RESULTS

A total of 139 patients were included in the study. A prophylactic mesh was used in 80 (57.5%) and primary closure was practised in 59 (42.4%) patients. The median follow-up was 30 (interquartile range 46.88) months. Thirty patients (21.6%) developed perineal hernia. No significant differences were found between prophylactic mesh and primary closure (16.3% vs 23.3%, P = 0.07). The median period between surgery and hernia diagnosis was 8 months in the primary closure group and 24 months in the mesh group (P < 0.01). Perineal wound morbidity was significantly higher in the prophylactic mesh group (55% vs 33.9%, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

In our study, the use of a biological mesh did not reduce the rate of perineal hernia, although it did delay its appearance. Perineal closure using a biological mesh may increase perineal morbidity, both acute and chronic.

Is extralevator abdominoperineal resection necessary for low rectal carcinoma in the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy era?

Background: We aimed to compare the short-term surgical and early surgical oncological outcomes of abdominoperineal resection (APR) and extralevator APR (ELAPR) in patients with low rectal carcinoma that have received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT), whose abdominal procedures were performed laparoscopically.Methods: One hundred and four patients who underwent APR or ELAPR for stage II/III low rectal carcinoma NACRT between 2013 and 2016 were evaluated by reviewing the standard charts for colorectal carcinoma.Results: Median follow-up for patients in APR group was 56 months(24-67 months) and 52 months(27-64 months) for ELAPR group. The postoperative complication rates were higher in ELAPR than in APR (perineal wound infection 38% vs. 22.5%(p = .03), perineal wound dehiscence 57% vs. 25%(p = .01), persistent perineal pain 28.5% vs. 13%(p = .01), urinary dysfunction 23% vs. 14.5%(p = .02), reoperation 16.5% vs. 4.8%(p = .03), respectively). Circumferential resection margin positivity, the number of lymph nodes dissected, and the rate of intra-operative perforation of the tumor were similar for both surgical techniques. Local recurrence rates at postoperative 2 years were also similar after APR and ELAPR (8% vs. 9.5%, p = .2).Conclusion: We conclude that in the era of routinely used NACRT, ELAPR is not superior to conventional APR for stage II/III low rectal carcinomas. ELAPR is associated with increased morbidity and has no short-term surgical oncological advantage over APR.

Quality of Life, Sexual Functioning, and Physical Functioning Following Perineal Reconstruction with the Lotus Petal Flap

BACKGROUND

Lotus petal flaps (LPF) may be used for the reconstruction of extralevator abdominoperineal defects that cannot be closed primarily. Limited data are available on how perineal reconstruction with the LPF impacts on patients' quality of life (QoL), sexual functioning, and physical functioning.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was performed following perineal reconstruction with the LPF. The QoL of patients having undergone LPF reconstruction was compared with a control group in which perineal defects were closed without flaps. Sexual and physical functioning (presence of perineal herniation and range of motion [ROM] of the hip joints) could only be evaluated in the LPF group. Psychometrically sound questionnaires were used. Physical functioning was evaluated subjectively with binary questions and objectively by physical examination.

RESULTS

Of the 23 patients asked to participate, 15 (65%) completed the questionnaires and 11 (47%) underwent physical examination. In the control group, 16 patients were included. There were no significant differences in QoL between the LPF and control groups. Within the LPF group, 33% of patients were sexually active postoperatively compared with 87% preoperatively. No perineal herniation was found. The ROM of the hip joints was bilaterally smaller compared with the generally accepted values.

CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions should be made with care given the small sample size. Despite a supposedly larger resection area in the LPF group, QoL was comparable in both groups. Nonetheless, reconstruction seemed to affect sexual function and physical function, not hampering overall satisfaction.

Pelvic peritoneum reconstruction using the bladder peritoneum flap in laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision: A multi-center, prospective single-arm cohort study (IDEAL Phase 2A)

INTRODUCTION

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) may cause various surgical complications including disruption of perineal wound, perineal hernia and adhesive small-bowel obstruction. Pelvic peritoneum reconstruction (PPR) could prevent those complications, but it may not always be achievable, especially in patients with severe pelvic fibrosis after neoadjuvant radiotherapy. Our previous study has reported the application of the PPR using the bladder peritoneum flap in laparoscopic ELAPE. The aim of the study is to evaluate the short-term clinical, technical and safety outcomes of PPR using the bladder peritoneum flap in laparoscopic ELAPE.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a multi-center prospective single-arm cohort study and fulfill the IDEAL 2A stage principle. Rectal cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic ELAPE, suffering rigid pelvis or huge perineal peritoneum defect, and having difficulty in primary perineal wound closure will be considered eligible. Main exclusion criteria are being complicated with urgent complications, ASA grade >3 and accompanied with mental illness. After informed consent, 30 patients are planned to be included in the study. Standard laparoscopic ELAPE with pelvic peritoneal floor reconstruction using bladder peritoneum flap are to be performed. The surgical safety is to be evaluated after one-year follow-up. Primary endpoints are the occurrence of intraoperative and postoperative complications of PPR using the bladder peritoneum flap. Second endpoints are overall complication rate within 30 days after surgery, extent of small intestine falling down to pelvic cavity, and other follow-up consequences within 1 year after surgery.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This experiment was approved by the Biomedical Ethics Committee of West China Hospital of Sichuan University.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04177407.

Long-term outcomes of biological mesh repair following extra levator abdominoperineal excision of the rectum: an observational study of 100 patients

Background

Current evidence suggests that pelvic floor reconstruction following extralevator abdominoperineal excision of rectum (ELAPER) may reduce the risk of perineal herniation of intra-abdominal contents. Options for reconstruction include mesh and myocutaneous flaps, for which long-term follow-up data is lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of biological mesh (Surgisis^®, Biodesign™) reconstruction following ELAPER.

Methods

A retrospective review of all patients having ELAPER in a single institution between 2008 and 2018 was perfomed. Clinic letters were scrutinised for wound complications and all available cross sectional imaging was reviewed to identify evidence of perineal herniation (defined as presence of intra-abdominal content below a line between the coccyx and the lower margin of the pubic symphysis on sagittal view).

Results

One hundred patients were identified (median age 66, IQR 59–72 years, 70% male). Median length of follow-up was 4.9 years (IQR 2.3–6.7 years). One, 2- and 5-year mortality rates were 3, 8 and 12%, respectively. Thirty three perineal wounds had not healed by 1 month, but no mesh was infected and no mesh needed to be removed. Only one patient developed a symptomatic perineal hernia requiring repair. On review of imaging a further 7 asymptomatic perineal hernias were detected. At 4 years the cumulative radiologically detected perineal hernia rate was 8%.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that pelvic floor reconstruction using biological mesh following ELAPER is both safe and effective as a long-term solution, with low major complication rates. Symptomatic perineal herniation is rare following mesh reconstruction, but may develop sub clinically and be detectable on cross-sectional imaging.

Multicentre, randomised trial comparing acellular porcine collagen implant versus gluteus maximus myocutaneous flap for reconstruction of the pelvic floor after extended abdominoperineal excision of rectum: study protocol for the Nordic Extended Abdominoperineal Excision (NEAPE) study

INTRODUCTION

Different surgical techniques are used to cover the defect in the floor of the lesser pelvis after an 'extralevator' or 'extended' abdominoperineal excision for advanced rectal cancer. However, these operations are potentially mutilating, and the reconstruction method of the pelvic floor has been studied only sparsely. We aim to study whether a porcine-collagen implant is superior or equally beneficial to a gluteus maximus myocutaneous flap as a reconstruction method.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a multicentre non-blinded randomised controlled trial with the experimental arm using a porcine-collagen implant and the control arm using a gluteus maximus muscle and skin rotation flap. Considered for inclusion are patients with rectal cancer, who are operated on with a wide abdominoperineal rectal excision including most of the levator muscles and where the muscle remnants cannot be closed in the midline with sutures. Patients with a primary or recurrent rectal cancer with an estimated survival of more than a year are eligible. The randomisation is computer generated with a concealed sequence and stratified by participating hospital and preoperative radiotherapy regimen. The main outcome is physical performance 6 months after surgery measured with the timed-stands test. Secondary outcomes are perineal wound healing, surgical complications, quality of life, ability to sit and other outcomes measured at 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. To be able to state experimental arm non-inferiority with a 10% margin of the primary outcome with 90% statistical power and assuming 10% attrition, we aim to enrol 85 patients from May 2011 onwards.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the Regional Ethical Review board at Umeå University (protocol no: NEAPE-2010-335-31M). The results will be disseminated through patient associations and conventional scientific channels.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01347697; Pre-results.

The Perineal Turnover Perforator Flap: A New and Simple Technique for Perineal Reconstruction After Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision

BACKGROUND

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) is increasingly used to treat locally advanced low rectal cancer as it has been related to superior oncological outcomes than traditional abdominoperineal excision.However, ELAPE also has been associated with high perineal wound morbidity rates as it creates a larger perineal cavity than standard abdominoperineal excision. This greater defect, along with the effects of preoperative chemoradiation on wound healing, makes uneventful perineal reconstruction post-ELAPE a real challenge for the plastic surgeon.In this paper, the authors present a new technique for perineal reconstruction post-ELAPE, using a perforator, islanded, turnover, de-epithelialized local flap (perineal turnover perforator [PTO] flap).

METHODS

The PTO flap is raised based on perforators from internal pudendal artery. The flap is based on the concept that thick gluteal dermis can act as an "autologous dermal vascularized" substitute for the excised pelvic floor muscles, whereas the bulk of its subcutaneous tissue is used to obliterate dead space.Fourteen patients underwent perineal reconstruction using this approach. Patients' demographics, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, histopathology, duration of surgery, follow-up, and complications were analysed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Median operating time was 49 minutes. There were no flap, donor site, or major wound complications. One patient had superficial skin dehiscence, and one patient developed perineal hernia. None of the patients developed chronic perineal pain.

CONCLUSIONS

The PTO flap is a quick, simple yet safe and reliable option for perineal reconstruction after ELAPE that offers many advantages over the heretofore used reconstructive techniques including primary closure, myocutaneous flaps, and biological meshes.

Primary vs myocutaneous flap closure of perineal defects following abdominoperineal resection for colorectal disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Perineal wound complications after abdominoperineal resection (APR) have become a major clinical challenge. Myocutaneous flap closure has been proposed in place of primary closure to improve wound healing. We conducted this comprehensive meta-analysis to evaluate the current scientific evidence of primary closure vs myocutaneous flap closure of perineal defects following APR for colorectal disease.

METHODS

We systematically searched the MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases to identify all relevant studies. After data extraction from the included studies, meta-analysis was performed to compare perioperative outcomes of primary closure and myocutaneous flap closure.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies with a total of 17 913 patients (16 346 primary closure vs 1567 myocutaneous flap closure) were included. We found that primary closure was significantly associated with higher total perineal wound complications (P = 0.007), major perineal wound complications (P < 0.001) and perineal wound infection (P = 0.001). On the other hand, myocutaneous flap closure takes more operation time (P < 0.001) and increases the risk of perineal wound dehiscence (P = 0.01), deep surgical site infection (P < 0.001), enterocutaneous fistulas (P = 0.03) and return to the operating room (P = 0.0005). There were no significant differences between the two groups for other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first systematic review with meta-analysis comparing primary closure with myocutaneous flap closure of perineal defects after APR for colorectal disease. Although taking more operation time and an increased risk of specific complications, the pooled results have validated the use of myocutaneous flaps for reducing total/major perineal wound complications. More investigations are needed to draw definitive conclusions on this dilemma.

Closure of the perineal defect after abdominoperineal excision for rectal adenocarcinoma - ACPGBI Position Statement

BACKGROUND

Perineal wound morbidity is common following abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (APE). There is no consensus on the optimum perineal reconstruction method after APE, and in particular 'extra-levator APE' (ELAPE).

METHODS

A systematic review of the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases was performed. This position statement formulated clinical questions and graded the evidence to make recommendations.

RESULTS

Perineal wound complications may be higher following ELAPE compared to 'conventional APE (cAPE)' however there is insufficient evidence to recommend cAPE over ELAPE with regards to the impact upon perineal wound healing. The majority of cAPE studies have used primary closure with varying complication rates reported. Where concerns regarding perineal wound healing exist, myocutaneous flap closure may be considered as an alternative method. There is minimal available evidence on perineal mesh reconstruction following cAPE. Primary closure, mesh use and myocutaneous flap reconstruction following ELAPE has been reported although variations in definitions and low-quality of available evidence limit comparison. There is insufficient evidence to recommend one particular method of perineal closure after ELAPE. Primary perineal closure is likely to have a higher risk of perineal herniation. Myocutaneous flaps and biological mesh have been effectively used in ELAPE closure. There is insufficient evidence to support one particular type of flap or mesh. Perineal wound complication rates are significantly increased when neo-adjuvant radiotherapy is delivered, regardless of surgical technique. There is no evidence that laparoscopy reduces APE perineal wound complications.

CONCLUSION

This position statement updates clinicians on current evidence around perineal closure after APE surgery.

Application of modified primary closure of the pelvic floor in laparoscopic extralevator abdominal perineal excision for low rectal cancer

AIM

To introduce a novel, modified primary closure technique of laparoscopic extralevator abdominal perineal excision (LELAPE) for low rectal cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data from 76 patients with rectal cancer who underwent LELAPE from March 2013 to May 2016. Patients were classified into the modified primary closure group (32 patients) and the biological mesh closure group (44 patients). The total operating time, reconstruction time, postoperative stay duration, total cost, postoperative complications and tumor recurrence were compared.

RESULTS

All surgery was successfully performed. The pelvic reconstruction time was 14.6 ± 3.7 min for the modified primary closure group, which was significantly longer than that of the biological mesh closure group (7.2 ± 1.9 min, P < 0.001). The total operating time was not different between the two groups (236 ± 20 min vs 248 ± 43 min, P = 0.143). The postoperative hospital stay duration was 8.1 ± 1.9 d, and the total cost was 9297 ± 1260 USD for the modified primary closure group. Notably, both of these categories were significantly lower in this group than those of the biological mesh closure group (P = 0.001 and P = 0.003, respectively). There were no differences observed between groups when comparing other perioperative data, long-term complications or oncological outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The modified primary closure method for reconstruction of the pelvic floor in LELAPE for low rectal cancer is technically feasible, safe and cost-effective.

Comparative analysis of robot-assisted vs. open abdominoperineal resection in terms of operative and initial oncological outcomes

Purpose

The present study aimed to objectively evaluate robot-assisted abdominoperineal resection (APR) in comparison with open APR, in terms of operative elements and initial oncological outcomes.

Methods

A total of 118 patients with lower rectal adenocarcinoma who had undergone curative APR were consecutively enrolled between June 2010 and June 2016, i.e., robot-assisted group (n = 40) and open group (n = 78).

Results

Transabdominal extralevator muscle excision was more frequently performed in the robot-assisted group than in the open group (68% vs. 42%, P = 0.012). In the robot-assisted group, the pain score at one day after surgery was less than in the open group, and the resumption of bowel function was earlier (P = 0.043 and P = 0.002, respectively). The occurrence of circumferential resection margin involvement (CRM+) was more than 5 times greater in the open group than in the robot-assisted group, presenting a marginal significance (P = 0.057). Although important postoperative morbidity did not generally differ between the 2 groups, voiding difficulty and male sexual dysfunction appeared to be encountered more frequently in the open group than in the robot-assisted group.

Conclusion

The robot-assisted APR facilitated transabdominal extralevator excision and bowel recovery and demonstrated a trend towards reduced CRM+.

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer with biological mesh for pelvic floor reconstruction

Goal

To share our experience of extra-levator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for low rectal cancer, focusing on perineal repair with biological mesh.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed medical records of all patients with low rectal cancer who underwent the ELAPE procedure using biological mesh for perineal repair at the Gastrointestinal Surgery of Nanjing Drum Power Hospital between January 2013 and September 2015. All patients were closely followed up to now.

Results

A total of 17 patients underwent ELAPE for low rectal cancer was screened. Of these, 15 patients had primary rectal cancer, 1 had local recurrent rectal cancer, and 1 had malignant melanoma. All patients underwent ELAPE successfully without intestinal perforation and got stage I healing in perineum wound without incision infection, dehiscence, cystocele perinealis, urethral dysfunction or intestinal obstruction. Perineum wound hematoma developed in just one patient and had successful percutaneous drainage in one week. During the follow-up, there was no recurrence, perineal hernia, sexual dysfunction, urinary retention, or bowel obstruction. Two patients described slight pain in the sacrococcygeal region without special handling.

Conclusion

ELAPE is applicable to low rectal cancer. Biological mesh reconstruction of perineal defect seems to be safe and effective, with high patient compliance.

A systematic review of transabdominal levator division during abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (APER)

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the surgical technique, short-term oncological and perioperative outcomes for the transabdominal division of the levator ani muscles during abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (APER).

METHODS

A systematic review was performed to identify studies reporting on transabdominal division of the levator ani during APER. A comprehensive literature search was performed using a combination of free-text terms and controlled vocabulary when applicable on the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library. The search period was from January 1945 to December 2015. The following search headings were used: "transabdominal", "transpelvic", "abdominal" or "pelvic" combined with either "levator" or "extralevator" and with "abdominoperineal".

RESULTS

Nine publications were identified reporting on 99 participants. The male/female distribution was 1.44:1, respectively, and the mean age was 56.6 (30-77) years. All tumours were less than 5 cm from the anal verge. The preoperative radiological staging was T2 in 18% of cases, T3 in 53.5% and T4 in 28.5%. Transabdominal division of the levators was performed laparoscopically in 55 cases, robotically in 34 and open in 10. The mean operating time was 255 (177-640) min. Mean intraoperative blood loss was 140 (92-500) ml. There were no conversions to open. Circumferential resection margins were positive in two cases, and there was one intraoperative perforation. Mean post-operative length of stay was 9.3 (3-67) days. Follow-up (from 0 to 31 months) revealed 19 perineal wound infections, 15 cases of sexual dysfunction and 7 cases of urinary retention. There was no mortality and 1 readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

Transabdominal division of the levators during APER is feasible and reproducible, with acceptable perioperative and good early oncological outcomes. Further comparative studies are needed.

Oncological and quality of life outcomes following extralevator versus standard abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION There is increasing and conflicting research debating the oncological benefits of extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) compared with standard abdominoperineal excision (SAPE). However, there is very little in the literature on the long-term effects on patients' wellbeing following the two procedures. The aim of this study was to determine the oncological outcomes and long-term quality of life (QoL) of patients at two hospitals having undergone ELAPE or SAPE. METHODS Consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent either ELAPE or SAPE between January 2009 and June 2015 at a single centre were analysed. Oncological outcomes were determined by histology and follow-up imaging. QoL data were obtained prospectively using the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29 questionnaires. RESULTS A total of 48 patients (36 male, 12 female; 27 ELAPE, 21 SAPE) were reviewed. The mean age was 67.4 years and the median follow-up duration was 44 months (range: 6-79 months). Four patients (2 ELAPE, 2 SAPE) developed local recurrence. Rates of distant metastasis were similar (ELAPE: 11%, SAPE: 14%). There was no significant difference in mean global health status score (ELAPE: 77.3, SAPE: 65.3). Impotence was the most frequently reported problem (mean symptom scores of 89.7 and 78.8 for ELAPE and SAPE respectively). CONCLUSIONS This is the largest study with the longest follow-up period that compares QoL after ELAPE with that after SAPE. Although more radical in nature, ELAPE did not demonstrate any significant impact on QoL compared with SAPE. There was no significant difference in long-term oncological outcome between the groups. Impotence remains a significant problem for all patients and they should be well informed of this risk prior to surgery.

Biological Mesh Closure of the Pelvic Floor After Extralevator Abdominoperineal Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (the BIOPEX-study)

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of biological mesh closure on perineal wound healing after extralevator abdominoperineal resection (eAPR).

BACKGROUND

Perineal wound complications frequently occur after eAPR with preoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer. Cohort studies have suggested that biological mesh closure of the pelvic floor improves perineal wound healing.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to primary closure (standard arm) or biological mesh closure (intervention arm). A non-cross-linked porcine acellular dermal mesh was sutured to the pelvic floor remnants in the intervention arm, followed by a layered closure of the ischioanal and subcutaneous fat and skin similar to the control intervention. The outcome of the randomization was concealed from the patient and perineal wound assessor. The primary endpoint was the rate of uncomplicated perineal wound healing defined as a Southampton wound score of less than 2 at 30 days postoperatively. Patients were followed for 1 year.

RESULTS

In total, 104 patients were randomly assigned to primary closure (n = 54; 1 dropouts) and biological mesh closure (n = 50; 2 dropouts). Uncomplicated perineal wound healing rate at 30 days was 66% (33/50; 3 not evaluable) after primary closure, which did not significantly differ from 63% (30/48) after biological mesh closure [relative risk 1.056; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.7854-1.4197; P = 0.7177). Freedom from perineal hernia at 1 year was 73% (95% CI 60.93-85.07) versus 87% (95% CI 77.49-96.51), respectively (P = 0.0316).

CONCLUSIONS

Perineal wound healing after eAPR with preoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer was not improved when using a biological mesh. A significantly lower 1-year perineal hernia rate after biological mesh closure is a promising secondary finding that needs longer follow-up to determine its clinical relevance.

Biological mesh reconstruction of the pelvic floor following abdominoperineal excision for cancer: A review

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision and pelvic exenteration are mutilating operations that leave wide perineal wounds. Such large wounds are prone to infection and perineal herniation, and their closure is a major concern to most surgeons. Different approaches to the perineal repair exist, varying from primary or mesh closure to myocutaneous flaps. Each technique has its own associated advantages and potential complications and the ideal approach is still debated. In the present study, we reviewed the current literature and our own local data regarding the use of biological mesh for perineal wound closure. Current evidence suggests that the use of biological mesh carries an acceptable risk of wound complications compared to primary closure and is similar to flap reconstruction. In addition, the rate of perineal hernia is lower in early follow-up, while long-term hernia occurrence appears to be similar between the different techniques. Finally, it is an easy and quick reconstruction method. Although more expensive than primary closure, the cost associated with the use of a biological mesh is at least equal, if not less, than flap reconstruction.

Pre-operative staging of rectal cancer: a review of imaging techniques

INTRODUCTION

The treatment of rectal cancer has diversified in recent years, presenting the clinician and patient with increasingly challenging management decisions. At the heart of this decision-making process are two competing interests; more radical but more morbid treatments which optimize oncological outcome, and less radical treatments which preserve organs and function but may pose a greater risk of disease recurrence.

AREAS COVERED

Imaging plays a vital role informing this decision-making process, both by providing prognostic details about the cancer before the start of treatment and by updating this picture as the cancer responds or fails to respond to treatment. There is a range of available imaging modalities, each with its strengths and weaknesses. Optimizing rectal cancer treatment requires a clear understanding of the important questions that imaging needs to answer and the optimum imaging strategy. Expert Commentary: This article provides an evidence-based review of the available imaging techniques and an expert commentary on the best imaging strategy.

Wound Complications and Perineal Pain After Extralevator Versus Standard Abdominoperineal Excision: A Nationwide Study

BACKGROUND

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision was introduced as an alternative to conventional abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancers. The perineal dissection is more extensive with extralevator abdominoperineal excision and leaves a greater defect.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate, on a national basis, the risk of perineal wound complications, pain, and hernia after conventional and extralevator abdominoperineal excision performed for low rectal cancer.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective study collecting data from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group database and from electronic medical files of patients.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at Danish surgical departments.

PATIENTS

A total of 445 patients operated between 2009 and 2012 with extralevator or conventional abdominoperineal excision were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main end points of this study were perineal wound complications and pain lasting for >30 days after the operation.

RESULTS

The 2 groups were demographically similar except for a higher ASA score in the conventional group. In the extralevator group, neoadjuvant chemoradiation was more frequent (71% vs 41%; p < 0.001), T stage was higher (more T3 tumors; 52% vs 38%; p = 0.006), and more tumors were fixed (21% vs 12%; p = 0.02). Perineal wound complications and pain were more frequent after extralevator versus conventional excision (44% vs 25%; p < 0.001 and 38% vs 22%; p < 0.001). After multivariate analyses, neoadjuvant chemoradiation, extralevator excision, and operation early in the study period were found to have a significant influence on the risk of long-term wound complications. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation and wound complications were significant risk factors for long-term perineal pain. Results were similar after subgroup analyses on low tumors only.

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective study. The 2 groups were not completely comparable at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation, extralevator compared with conventional excision, and operation early in the study period were significant factors for predicting perineal wound complications. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation and wound complications were predictors of long-term perineal pain.

Novel technique of robotic extralevator abdominoperineal resection with gracilis flap closure

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this paper is to introduce a robotic assisted approach to extralevator abdominoperineal excision in the modified Lloyd-Davis position with reconstruction of the perineum using pedicled gracilis flaps, and to discuss outcomes in a cohort of six patients.

METHODS

Data was collected by chart review on six patients who underwent extralevator excision with gracilis flap reconstruction from 10/2013 to 06/2015. Technical details, operative data, oncologic outcomes, and wound healing complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

There were no instances of intraoperative perforation or positive circumferential resection margin, and one case of locoregional recurrence. Two patients experienced flap venous congestion and one patient developed a perineal abscess. All patients went on to complete healing.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of a minimally invasive robotic assisted extralevator abdominoperineal excision performed in the modified Lloyd-Davis position with reconstruction of the perineum with pedicled gracilis flaps has excellent oncologic outcomes and acceptable wound healing complications. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. StartCopTextCopyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The use of a negative pressure wound management system in perineal wound closure after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Perineal wound healing is a significant challenge after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) due to a high rate of wound breakdown. Negative pressure therapy has proven benefits in open wounds, and recently a negative pressure system has been developed for use on closed wounds at high risk of breakdown, such as apronectomy and hysterectomy. The aim of the present study was to determine whether negative pressure therapy applied to closed perineal wounds after ELAPE improved wound healing and compare outcomes to the published literature and outcomes from a historical cohort of patients who had undergone 'standard' abdominoperineal resection (APR) and primary closure of the perineal wounds.

METHODS

Prospective data on consecutive patients having ELAPE in the period from November 2012 to April 2015 were collected. The pelvic floor defect was reconstructed with biologic mesh. The adipose tissue layer was closed with vicryl sutures, a suction drain was left in the deep layer, the subcuticular layer and skin were closed, and the negative pressure system was applied. Any wound breakdown within the first 30 days postoperatively was recorded.

RESULTS

Of the 32 consecutive ELAPE patients whose perineal wounds were closed within 30 days with the use of the negative pressure system, there was 1 patient with major perineal wound breakdown and 2 patients with a 1 cm superficial wound defect, which needed no further treatment. In the remaining 29 (90 %) patients, the perineal wounds healed fully without complications. Twenty-five patients underwent standard APR in 2010-2011 with primary closure of their perineal wounds. Ten out of 25(40 %) of patients who had undergone standard APR and primary closure of perineal wounds had major wound complications (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that after ELAPE the application of a negative pressure system to the perineal wound closed with biologic mesh may reduce perineal wound complications and may reduce the need for major perineal reconstruction.

Fasciocutaneous Lotus Petal Flap for Perineal Wound Reconstruction after Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision: Application for Reconstruction of the Pelvic Floor and Creation of a Neovagina

BACKGROUND

The extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) procedure creates an extensive soft tissue defect of the pelvic floor. It has been suggested that primary reconstruction reduces the risk of wound infection and delayed wound healing in this high-risk area. Use of myocutaneous flaps or omentoplasty are associated with functional limitations and complications. We performed the perineal variant of the lotus petal flap, which was originally described for vulvar reconstruction. We aimed to verify if application of the lotus petal flap in pelvic floor reconstruction after ELAPE meets the goals of an ideal reconstruction.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of 28 patients who underwent the lotus petal flap procedure for pelvic floor reconstruction after ELAPE between January 2011 and March 2014.

RESULTS

Median age was 62.1 years and 78.6 % of patients were female. In most patients the tumor was preoperatively irradiated (89.3 %) and in 28.6 % of the reconstructions a biological mesh was applied. No total flap loss occurred. Six (21.4 %) patients had no complications, while 13 (46.4 %) patients had minor complications (Clavien-Dindo grade I-II). Reoperation (Clavien-Dindo grade IIIb) was performed in nine patients (32.1 %), three of whom required a second lotus petal flap reconstruction. Median time until wound healing was 14 weeks. No additional surgery was performed for aesthetic problems.

CONCLUSIONS

Reconstruction of the pelvic floor after ELAPE using the fasciocutaneous lotus petal flap has limited major complications, but still with a high incidence of minor wound complications. This retrospective cohort study shows limited consequences on form and function.

Management of the Perineal Defect after Abdominoperineal Excision

The optimal management of the perineal defect following abdominoperineal excision for anorectal malignancy remains a source of debate. The repopularization of extralevator resection means colorectal surgeons are confronted with larger perineal wounds. There are several surgical options available-primary perineal closure and drainage, omentoplasty, biological or synthetic mesh placement, musculocutaneous flap repair, and negative wound pressure therapy. These options are discussed along with the potential benefits and complications of each. There remains no consensus on which management strategy is superior; thus, each case must be tailored for each individual patient. Surgical expertise and availability of a multidisciplinary team approach are important considerations.

Laparoscopic translevator approach to abdominoperineal resection for rectal adenocarcinoma: feasibility and short-term oncologic outcomes

BACKGROUND

The extra-levator approach to abdominal perineal resection (APR) was developed in order to reduce the rates of positive circumferential resection margin. This approach, however, is associated with significant morbidity. We postulate that a less radical resection of the levators done laparoscopically could significantly decrease the rate of perineal complications while ensuring an oncologically adequate specimen. To date, to our knowledge, there are no reports in the literature describing a laparoscopic translevator approach for APR. The purpose of this study is to describe our initial experience with this approach and assess our short-term oncologic and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of patients who underwent laparoscopic APR with intra-abdominal levator transection for rectal cancer from 2012 to 2014 at a single tertiary care institution. Main outcome measures include: perineal flap rates, post-operative complications, length of stay, distance from tumour to circumferential resection margin, R0 status, and disease recurrence. Data are presented as median (interquartile range) unless otherwise noted.

RESULTS

Seventeen cases were identified. Patient age was 61 (range 34-75), and 59 % were male. Pre-operative distance of the tumour from the anal verge was 2.6 cm (0.4-3.9). Post-operative length of stay was 4 (4-6) days. One patient required a perineal flap for reconstruction. Four patients (22 %) had perineal complications (three wound infections and one hernia). No patients reported sexual dysfunction, and one (5 %) developed urinary retention. Five (29 %) patients had a complete pathological response. The circumferential resection margin was 1.5 (0.8-2.5) cm, with no positive margins reported. The number of retrieved lymph nodes was 12 (range 2-30). Follow-up was 9.7 months (range 20 days-23 months), during which one patient developed recurrent disease.

CONCLUSIONS

This study describes a novel surgical approach to APR that has the potential to both decrease perineal complications and provide excellent oncologic results.

Short-term outcomes of the modified extralevator abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer (with videos)

BACKGROUND

Extralevator abdominoperineal resection had oncologic superiority with reduced local recurrence and improving survival rates. However, extended perineal resection resulted in complicated perineal reconstructions. Therefore, a new surgical technique to overcome previous limitations is required. This study aims to demonstrate a surgical procedure and outcomes of the modified extralevator abdominoperineal resection, which satisfies both an extended cylindrical resection and a convenient perineal wound closure by modification of the surgical dissection plane.

METHODS

From September 2011 to February 2014, 12 consecutive patients (five males and seven females) who underwent the modified extralevator abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer were evaluated. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were assessed. Pathologic outcomes were evaluated for the oncologic results.

RESULTS

The mean age was 55.3 ± 15.1 years, and body mass index was 21.8 ± 3.1 kg/m(2). Ten patients (83.3%) received preoperative chemoradiotherapy. The operations were performed by five cases of laparoscopic surgery, six cases of open surgery and one case of robotic surgery. The mean operation time was 258.8 ± 58.0 min. There were no conversions and no tumor perforations. Days to first soft diet was 4.7 ± 3.4 days, and the mean hospital stay was 11.2 ± 4.7 days. Postoperative complications were two cases of grade I, two cases of grade II and one case of grade III. There was one patient (8.3%) with a positive circumferential resection margin, and there was one case of local recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

The modified extralevator abdominoperineal resection was feasible and safe for patients with low rectal cancer with extended perineal dissection and convenient direct wound closure.

Perineal hernia formation following extralevator abdominoperineal excision

AIM

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) has become increasingly used because of some evidence of improved oncological outcome. It is, however, thought to be associated with a higher incidence of perineal hernia formation, although the exact incidence is not known. The aim of this study was to identify the incidence of perineal hernia after ELAPE.

METHOD

The case notes of patients over a 54-month period were reviewed. The perineal closure technique, perineal complications and management plan were recorded.

RESULTS

During the study period, 56 patients underwent ELAPE, of whom 24 (44%) developed a perineal wound complication. Primary perineal closure was performed with (eight patients) and without (32 patients) insertion of a biological mesh or myocutaneous flap. Perineal hernia was the commonest complication (26%) and occurred in nine (45%) of 20 patients who had a laparoscopic ELAPE.

CONCLUSION

Perineal hernia formation was the commonest perineal complication of ELAPE and occurred in nearly half of patients having a laparoscopic ELAPE.

Repair of a coccygeal hernia with a biological mesh

•

We present a case of coccygeal hernation after coccygectomy.

•

Hernia repair was performed with a biological mesh via an direct approach.

•

Only 8 other cases could be identified in literature.

Coccygeal herniation after coccygectomy is rare. Little is known about the management of this complication. We present a case of a 44 year old women with a coccygeal herniation 7 years after coccygectomy. She was treated two times for an infected pilonidal sinus with incision and drainage. After the last incision and drainage she had complaints of a painful swelling in the sacral area and difficulty with evacuation of her stools. A defaecography showed a coccygeal herniation. An additional MRI of the pelvic region showed a defect with a diameter of approximately 38 mm. We performed a hernia repair with a biological mesh (Strattice™ surgical mesh, LifeCell Corporation USA) via a sacral approach. Her recovery was complicated by a small wound dehiscence without clinical signs of infection. The sacral wound healed per secundam. Her complaints had completely disappeared. A defaecography 2 months after surgery showed no residual herniation. To our knowledge, it is the first reported case of a coccygeal hernia repair with a biological Strattice™ surgical mesh.

A prospective multicenter clinical study of extralevator abdominoperineal resection for locally advanced low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have shown that extralevator abdominoperineal resection has the potential for reduced circumferential resection margin involvement, intraoperative bowl perforation, and local recurrence rates; however, it has been suggested that extended resection may be associated with increased morbidity because of the formation of a larger perineal defect.

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to demonstrate the feasibility and complications of extralevator abdominoperineal resection for locally advanced low rectal cancer in China.

DESIGN

This was a prospective cohort study.

SETTING

The study was conducted at 7 university hospitals throughout China.

PATIENTS

A total of 102 patients underwent this procedure for primary locally advanced low rectal cancer between August 2008 and October 2011.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measures comprised circumferential resection margin involvement, intraoperative perforation, postoperative complications, and local recurrence.

RESULTS

The most common complications included sexual dysfunction (40.5%), perineal complications (23.5%), urinary retention (18.6%), and chronic perineal pain (13.7%). Chronic perineal pain was associated with coccygectomy (p < 0.001), and the pain gradually eased over time. Reconstruction of the pelvic floor with biological mesh was associated with a lower rate of perineal dehiscence (p = 0.006) and overall perineal wound complications (p = 0.02) in comparison with primary closure. A positive circumferential margin was demonstrated in 6 (5.9%) patients, and intraoperative perforations occurred in 4 (3.9%) patients. All circumferential margin involvements and intraoperative perforations were located anteriorly. The local recurrence was 4.9% at a median follow-up of 44 months (range, 18-68 months).

LIMITATIONS

This was a nonrandomized, uncontrolled study.

CONCLUSIONS

Extralevator abdominoperineal resection performed in the prone position for low rectal cancer is a relatively safe approach with acceptable circumferential resection margin involvement, intraoperative perforations, and local recurrences. Reconstruction of the pelvic floor with biological mesh might lower the rate of perineal wound complications (see Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/DCR/A161).

Robotic interface for transabdominal division of the levators and pelvic floor reconstruction in abdominoperineal resection: a case report and technical description

BACKGROUND

Extralevator abdominoperineal resection (APR) in a prone jackknife position was developed to avoid a positive circumferential resection margin, and its application led to lower rates of local recurrence. The paper describes a technique of robotic extralevator APR with transabdominal levator division followed by pelvic floor reconstruction with bilayered composite mesh.

METHODS

A 42-year-old man with low rectal cancer required APR that was performed in a lithotomy position with transabdominal division of the levators. After the perineal phase, the robot was redocked and a bilayered composite mesh was sutured to the pelvic inlet using robotic needle drivers.

RESULTS

The specimen had a cylindrical shape, and there was no surgical waist or perforation. Histology revealed a ypT2N0 tumor without circumferential margin involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic interface can aid in APR by accurately transecting the levators from the top. Additionally, it allows suturing of mesh around the pelvic inlet to prevent perineal hernias. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Randomized controlled multicentre study comparing biological mesh closure of the pelvic floor with primary perineal wound closure after extralevator abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer (BIOPEX-study)

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS/DESIGN

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.

DISCUSSION

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.

TRAIL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01927497 (Clinicaltrial.gov).