Perineal hernia repair after extralevator abdominoperineal excision, how we do it (PERineal Laparoscopic Sling: PERLS Technique)

Perineal hernia repair with a combined abdominoperineal approach with biologic mesh placement and peritoneal flap reconstruction

Perineal hernias occur rarely following abdominoperineal resections. No standardized surgical approach exists for treating PH. We herein present the case of a large, symptomatic PH that was repaired with a combined abdominal and perineal approach, with peritoneal flap reconstruction of the pelvic floor and placement of a biological mesh. The patient has not recurred after 3 years of follow-up. In conclusion, despite the lack of a standardized approach for tackling perineal hernias, a combined one with peritoneal flap reconstruction can be successfully used.

Techniques of perineal hernia repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Perineal hernias are rare, underreported and poorly studied complications of extensive pelvic surgeries. Their management is challenging, with currently no treatment algorithm available.

METHOD

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched. Studies comprising at least 3 patients who underwent surgical perineal hernia repair were included. The primary outcome was perineal hernia recurrence. The secondary outcomes were overall complications and surgical site occurrences.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies were included, comprising 325 patients undergoing 347 repairs. Overall complications were 33% (95% confidence interval 24%-43%) in the entire cohort, 31% (19%-44%) after perineal repair, 39% (14%-67%) after abdominal repair, and 36% (19%-53%) after mesh repair (20% with biological, 46% with synthetic mesh). The surgical site occurrence rate was 18% (8%-29%). The overall recurrence rate was 22% (15%-29%). Recurrence after perineal repair was 19% (10%-29%): 20% with mesh (25% with biological, 19% with synthetic), 24% with primary repair, and 39% with flap repair. Recurrence after an abdominal repair was 18% (11%-26%): 16% with laparoscopic, 12% with open, 16% with mesh (24% with biological, 16% with synthetic), 30% with primary, and 25% with flap repair. No significant differences could be found in the meta-analysis regarding overall complications and recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Synthetic mesh repair seems to be associated with a lower recurrence rate than other techniques, especially after an abdominal approach. The perineal and abdominal approaches appear to be safe, with similar recurrence rates. The combined approach seems promising, but more evidence is needed.