The impact of laparoscopic technique on the rate of perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection of the rectum

Incidence and risk factors for perineal hernia after robotic abdominoperineal resection: a single-center, retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Perineal hernia (PH) is a late complication of abdominoperineal resection (APR) that may compromise a patient's quality of life. The frequency and risk factors for PH after robotic APR adopting recent rectal cancer treatment strategies remain unclear.

METHODS

Patients who underwent robotic APR for rectal cancer between December 2011 and June 2022 were retrospectively examined. From July 2020, pelvic reinforcement procedures, such as robotic closure of the pelvic peritoneum and levator ani muscles, were performed as prophylactic procedures for PH whenever feasible. PH was diagnosed in patients with or without symptoms using computed tomography 1 year after surgery. We examined the frequency of PH, compared characteristics between patients with PH (PH+) and without PH (PH-), and identified risk factors for PH.

RESULTS

We evaluated 142 patients, including 53 PH+ (37.3%) and 89 PH- (62.6%). PH+ had a significantly higher rate of preoperative chemoradiotherapy (26.4% versus 10.1%, p = 0.017) and a significantly lower rate of undergoing pelvic reinforcement procedures (1.9% versus 14.0%, p = 0.017). PH+ had a lower rate of lateral lymph node dissection (47.2% versus 61.8%, p = 0.115) and a shorter operative time (340 min versus 394 min, p = 0.110). According to multivariate analysis, the independent risk factors for PH were preoperative chemoradiotherapy, not undergoing lateral lymph node dissection, and not undergoing a pelvic reinforcement procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

PH after robotic APR for rectal cancer is not a rare complication under the recent treatment strategies for rectal cancer, and performing prophylactic procedures for PH should be considered.

Perineal hernia as a sequela of anal reconstruction surgeries in perianal Crohn's disease

Perineal hernia is a rare complication of pelvic surgeries that can occur in patients with perianal Crohn's disease (pCD) as a long-term outcome of surgeries for complex fistula treatment. We present a case of a symptomatic pCD male patient with multiple perianal surgeries who presents with anal pain, diarrhea, and discharge. Magnetic resonance imaging showed a perineal hernia in the ischioanal fossa violating the convergence of the left external sphincter complex. The hernia was treated with an open primary hernia repair via the perineal approach. It recurred after 3 months, and the patient underwent secondary hernia repair with gracilis muscle interposition and mesh placement. Unfortunately, this was complicated by superficial skin dehiscence and mesh extrusion, but the flap remained viable and the hernia repair was intact. Incidence, symptoms, risk factors, imaging findings, and management of perineal hernias are reviewed.

Transanal total mesorectal excision port-assisted perineal hernia repair: A case report

Perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection (APR) is a troublesome problem, and severe cases require surgical treatment. However, perineal hernia repair is challenging, especially when combined with intestinal adhesions. The difficulty of the operation lies in performing adhesiolysis and mesh placement under poor visibility. While there are traditional, laparoscopic and even robotic methods of performing this procedure, no easy and minimally-invasive approach has been reported. Here, we report the case of a patient with perineal hernia, who underwent transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) port-assisted laparoscopic perineal hernia repair. The operation was successful, the postoperative recovery was uneventful, the patient’s symptoms improved significantly, and no recurrence was found during the 4-month follow-up. The availability and safety of TaTME port-assisted perineal hernia repair provide a promising approach for hernia repair. Compared with traditional perineal or laparoscopic abdominal approaches, this procedure is less invasive and results in a better field of vision.

Advantages of robotic abdominoperineal resection compared with laparoscopic surgery: a single-center retrospective study

PURPOSE

Although robotic surgery for rectal cancer can overcome the shortcomings of laparoscopic surgery, studies focusing on abdominoperineal resection are limited. The aim of this study was to compare the operative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted from April 2010 to March 2020. Patients with rectal cancer who underwent robotic or laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection without lateral lymph node dissection were enrolled. The perioperative and oncological outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

We evaluated 33 and 20 patients in the robotic and laparoscopic groups, respectively. The median operative time and blood loss were comparable between the two groups. No significant differences in the overall complication rates were noted, whereas the rates of urinary dysfunction (3% vs. 26%, p = 0.02) and perineal wound infection (9% vs. 35%, p = 0.03) in the robotic group were significantly lower in comparison to the laparoscopic group. The median postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the robotic group (8 days vs. 11 days, p < 0.01). The positive resection margin rates were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Robotic abdominoperineal resection demonstrated better short-term outcomes than laparoscopic surgery, suggesting that it could be a useful approach.

Perineal reconstruction after extralevator abdominoperineal resection: Differences among minimally invasive, open, or open with a vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap approaches

BACKGROUND

Perineal wound complications after extralevator abdominoperineal resection for cancer are common with no consensus on optimal reconstructive technique. We compared short- and long-term results of laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection with open surgery ± vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap.

METHODS

This is a single-institution retrospective observational study of 204 consecutive patients with advanced low rectal cancer who underwent extralevator abdominoperineal resection from January 2010 to August 2020. Main outcome measures were short-term results, wound complications, and incisional, parastomal, and perineal hernia rates.

RESULTS

Fifty-five (27%) patients had a laparoscopic approach, 80 (39%) open, and 69 (33%) open + vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap. The groups had similar median length of follow up (P = .75). Patients' age and radiation, intraoperative and postoperative complications, mortality, and readmission rates were similar among the 3 groups. Perineal wound infection and dehiscence rates were not influenced by surgical approach. Laparoscopy resulted in higher perineal (7.3 vs 2.5 vs 0%; P = .047) and parastomal (23.6 vs 13.8 vs 5.8%; P = .016) hernia rates than did open or open + vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap. Patients who underwent an open approach had a higher body mass index and rate of prior surgeries and preoperative ostomies. Laparoscopic and open approaches had significantly shorter operative times (300 vs 303 vs 404 minutes, respectively; P < .001) and shorter length of stay (7.6 vs 10.8 vs 11.12, respectively; P = .006) compared to open with a flap approach.

CONCLUSION

Open and open + vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap approaches for reconstruction after abdominoperineal resection had lower parastomal and perineal hernias rates but similar postoperative morbidity as did the laparoscopic approach.

Meta-analysis of biological mesh reconstruction versus primary perineal closure after abdominoperineal excision of rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) of rectal cancer has been proposed to achieve better oncological outcomes. The resultant wide perineal wound, however, presents a challenge for primary closure and subsequent wound healing. This meta-analysis compared the outcomes of primary perineal closure with those of biological mesh reconstruction.

METHODS

The Medline and Embase search was performed for the publications comparing primary perineal closure to biological mesh reconstruction. Early perineal wound complications (seroma, infection, dehiscence) and late perineal wound complications (perineal hernia, chronic pain, and chronic sinus) were analyzed as primary endpoints. Intraoperative blood loss, operation time, and hospital stay were compared as secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the overall early wound complications after primary closure or biological mesh reconstruction (odds ratio (OR) of 0.575 with 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.241 to 1.373 and a P value of 0.213). The incidence of perineal hernia after 1 year was significantly high after primary closure of the perineal wounds (OR of 0.400 with 95% CI of 0.240 to 0.665 and a P value of 0.001). No significant differences were observed among other early and late perineal wound complications. The operation time and hospital stay were shorter after primary perineal closure (p 0.001).

CONCLUSION

A lower incidence of perineal hernia and comparable early perineal wound complications after biological mesh reconstruction show a relative superiority over primary closure. More randomized studies are required before a routine biological mesh reconstruction can be recommended for closure of perineal wounds after ELAPE.