Efficacy of Pelvic Peritoneum Closure After Laparoscopic Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision for Rectal Cancer

The value of pelvic peritoneal reconstruction during abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To systematically evaluate the significance of pelvic peritoneal reconstruction during abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer, specifically focusing on its impact on the incidence of postoperative complications, in order to provide recommendations for clinical medical practice.

METHODS

We performed a thorough literature search using multiple databases, including PubMed, Web of Science (which includes MEDLINE), the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure database, and the Wan-Fang database. The search was updated until May 20, 2023, and included articles published from the earliest available dates. The selected literature was assessed for quality, and data extraction was conducted. The extracted data were then subjected to meta-analysis using RevMan 5.4 software.

RESULTS

A total of 16 cohort studies were included, with publication dates ranging from 2012 to 2021, including 9 prospective cohort studies and 7 retrospective cohort studies. These studies consisted of both a pelvic peritoneal closure (PPC) group and a non-closure group. The meta-analysis revealed that patients in the PPC group had significantly lower incidence rates of the following postoperative complications compared to the non-PPC group, with statistical significance observed (P < .05): intestinal obstruction (odds ratio [OR] = 0.22, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.14-0.36, P < .01), surgical site infection (OR = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.24-0.55, P < .01), pelvic and abdominal cavity infection (OR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.05-0.79, P < .05), pelvic and abdominal cavity infection (OR = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.07-0.39, P < .01).

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that pelvic peritoneal reconstruction during the surgical procedure holds promise in reducing the occurrence of adverse postoperative events and may have substantial clinical implications for the management of rectal cancer.

A comparison of surgical techniques for perineal wound closure following perineal excision: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To mitigate pelvic wound issues following perineal excision of rectal or anal cancer, a number of techniques have been suggested as an alternative to primary closure. These methods include the use of a biological/dual mesh, omentoplasty, muscle flap, and/or pelvic peritoneum closure. The aim of this network analysis was to compare all the available surgical techniques used in the attempt to mitigate issues associated with an empty pelvis.

METHODS

An electronic systematic search using MEDLINE databases (PubMed), EMBASE, and Web of Science was performed (Last date of research was March 15th, 2023). Studies comparing at least two of the aforementioned surgical techniques for perineal wound reconstruction during abdominoperineal resection, pelvic exenteration, or extra levator abdominoperineal excision were included. The incidence of primary healing, complication, and/or reintervention for perineal wound were evaluated. In addition, the overall incidence of perineal hernia was assessed.

RESULTS

Forty-five observational studies and five randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion reporting on 146,398 patients. All the surgical techniques had a comparable risk ratio (RR) in terms of primary outcomes. The pooled network analysis showed a lower RR for perineal wound infection when comparing primary closure (RR 0.53; Crl 0.33, 0.89) to muscle flap. The perineal wound dehiscence RR was lower when comparing both omentoplasty (RR 0.59; Crl 0.38, 0.95) and primary closure (RR 0.58; Crl 0.46, 0.77) to muscle flap.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical options for perineal wound closure have evolved significantly over the last few decades. There remains no clear consensus on the "best" option, and tailoring to the individual remains a critical factor.

Closure of pelvic peritoneum with bladder peritoneum flap reconstruction after laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision: A prospective stage II study

BACKGROUND

Extralevator abdominoperineal resection (ELAPE) has increased perineal wound complications due to the extended resection area. Closure of the pelvic peritoneum (CPP) may exclude the abdominal content from descending into the pelvic cavity and reduce the incidence of perineal complications after ELAPE. We have previously introduced bladder peritoneum flap reconstruction (BLAPER) as a novel method for patients in whom traditional CPP is not possible. The aim of the present study was to report the development and preliminary outcomes of BLAPER.

METHODS

This is a prospective single-arm study at the development and exploration phase and fulfills the IDEAL framework stage II. Ultralow rectal cancer patients with rigid pelvis who underwent ELAPE with BLAPER were enrolled. Primary outcomes were intraoperative complications and postoperative complications within 1 month after surgery.

RESULTS

Among 27 patients included, the overall success rate of BLAPER was 96.3% (26/27). Indocyanine green fluorescence imaging and antiadhesive barrier placement were introduced to improve the BLAPER technique. The incidence of major pelvic wound complications was 7.7%. No patient who underwent BLAPER has suffered small bowel obstruction (SBO), presence of small bowel in the retrourogenital space, or perineal hernia (PH).

CONCLUSIONS

BLAPER is safe and may prevent the small bowel from descending into the retrourogenital space and subsequently developing PH and SBO without increasing the intraoperative and postoperative complications. BLAPER may serve as an option when the primary suture of the pelvic peritoneum is not feasible.

Efficacy and Safety of Modified Pelvic Peritoneum Reconstruction with Unidirectional Barbed Suture in Laparoscopic Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision

Background: Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) procedure leaves a large pelvic floor defect, and can result in a high rate of perineal hernia. Pelvic peritoneum reconstruction (PPR) could reduce the rate of perineal hernia. In this article, the authors reconstructed pelvic peritoneum by retracing running sutures with unidirectional barbed thread after laparoscopic ELAPE. The aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PPR by retracing running sutures with unidirectional barbed thread in laparoscopic ELAPE. Materials and Methods: Intact clinical data were collected retrospectively from 27 distal rectal cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic ELAPE. All the patients underwent PPR by retracing running sutures with unidirectional barbed thread in the operation. Pooled data of perineal-related complications were analyzed. Results: After retracing running sutures, the tension of pelvic peritoneum was enhanced. Of the 27 patients included, 2 patients had perineal dehiscence and 1 patient developed bowel obstruction. There were no instances of perineal hernia and pelvic peritoneal internal hernia. Conclusions: PPR by retracing running sutures with unidirectional barbed thread in laparoscopic can reduce the risk of perineal hernia.

Laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision in distal rectal cancer patients: a retrospective comparative study

BACKGROUND

At present, abdominoperineal excision with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) is one of the treatment modalities of distal rectal cancer. Our study analyzed the effects of laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal resection (ELAPE) compared with laparoscopic conventional abdominoperineal resection(cAPR) in the treatment of distal rectal cancer.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinicopathological data of 177 distal rectal cancer patients treated with a laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection between 2011 and 2018. The patients were divided into four groups as follows: ELAPE without nCRT (group A), cAPR without nCRT (group B), ELAPE with long-course nCRT (group C) and cAPR with long-course nCRT (group D).

RESULTS

Positive circumferential resection margin (CRM), local recurrence rate, 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 3-year overall survival (OS) did not differ between group A and group B. The rate of positive CRM in group C was lower than group D (4.4% vs. 11.9%, respectively), although the difference was not significant (P = 0.377). The 3-year local recurrence rate in group C was lower compared with group D (6.6% vs. 16.7%, respectively), although the difference was not significant (P = 0.135). Three-year DFS and 3-year OS were not different between groups C and D.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that the effect of laparoscopic ELAPE in patients with low-risk rectal cancer is similar to laparoscopic cAPR, revealing that laparoscopic cAPR can be routinely selected for patients with low-risk rectal cancer. Furthermore, laparoscopic ELAPE has a tendency to reduce the rate of positive CRM and local recurrence in patients with high-risk rectal cancer. Laparoscopic ELAPE can be routinely considered for patients with high-risk rectal cancer.

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.

Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic Extralevator Abdominoperineal excision with modified position change for low rectal Cancer treatment

Background

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) has been recommended for treating low rectal cancer due to its potential advantages in improving surgical safety and oncologic outcomes as compared to conventional abdominoperineal excision (APE). In ELAPE, however, whether the benefits of intraoperative position change to a prone jackknife position outweighs the associated risks remains controversial. This study is to introduce a modified position change in laparoscopic ELAPE and evaluate its feasibility, safety and the long-term therapeutic outcomes.

Methods

Medical records of 56 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer underwent laparoscopic ELAPE from November 2013 to September 2016 were retrospectively studied. In the operation, a perineal dissection in prone jackknife position was firstly performed and the laparoscopic procedure was then conducted in supine position. Patient characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, pathologic and 5-year oncologic outcomes were analyzed.

Results

The mean operation time was 213.5 ± 29.4 min and the mean intraoperative blood loss was 152.7 ± 125.2 ml. All the tumors were totally resected, without intraoperative perforation, conversion to open surgery, postoperative 30-day death, and perioperative complications. All the patients achieved pelvic peritoneum reconstruction without the usage of biological mesh. During the follow-up period, perineal hernia was observed in 1 patient, impaired sexual function in 1 patient, and parastomal hernias in 3 patients. The local recurrence rate was 1.9% and distant metastasis was noted in 12 patients. The 5-year overall survival rate was 76.4% and the 5-year disease-free survival rate was 70.9%.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic ELAPE with modified position change is a simplified, safe and feasible procedure with favorable outcomes. The pelvic peritoneum can be directly closed by the laparoscopic approach without the application of biological mesh.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-10019-2.