Perineal Wound Complications After Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision for Low Rectal Cancer

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.

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.

Perineal wound complications after vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap and mesh closure following abdominoperineal surgery and pelvic exenteration of anal and rectal cancers: A meta-analysis

A meta-analysis research was implemented to appraise the perineal wound complications (PWCs) after vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) flap and mesh closure (MC) following abdominoperineal surgery (AS) and pelvic exenteration (PE) of anal and rectal cancers. Inclusive literature research till April 2023 was done and 2008 interconnected researches were revised. Of the 20 picked researches, enclosed 2972 AS and PE of anal and rectal cancers persons were in the utilized researchers' starting point, 1216 of them were utilizing VRAM flap, and 1756 were primary closure (PC). Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were utilized to appraise the consequence of VRAM flap in treating AS and PE of anal and rectal cancers by the dichotomous approach and a fixed or random model. VRAM flap had significantly lower PWCs (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42-0.98, p < 0.001), and major PWCs (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.32-0.80, p = 0.004) compared to PC in AS and PE of anal and rectal cancers persons. However, VRAM flap and PC had no significant difference in minor PWCs (OR, 1; 95% CI, 0.54-1.85, p = 1.00) in AS and PE of anal and rectal cancer persons. VRAM flap had significantly lower PWCs, and major PWCs, however, no significant difference was found in minor PWCs compared to PC in AS and PE of anal and rectal cancers persons. However, caution needs to be taken when interacting with its values since there was a low sample size of most of the chosen research found for the comparisons in the meta-analysis.

Outcomes of DIEP flap reconstruction after pelvic cancer surgery: A retrospective multicenter case series

BACKGROUND

Flap reconstruction is often required after pelvic tumor resection to reduce wound complications. The use of perforator flaps has been shown to reduce donor site morbidity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of pedicled deep inferior epigastric perforator (pDIEP) flap reconstruction.

METHODS

This was a retrospective multicenter study of patients who underwent immediate pDIEP flap reconstruction for a pelvic or perineal defect after tumor resection between November 2012 and June 2022. The primary outcome was abdominal donor site morbidity, and the secondary outcome was perineal morbidity.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients (median age, 57.5 years) who underwent pelvic exenteration (n = 31), extralevator abdominoperineal excision (n = 2), or extended vaginal hysterectomy (n = 1) were included. The most common indications were recurrent cervical (n = 19) and anal (n = 4) squamous cell carcinoma. Twenty-nine patients (85%) had a history of radiotherapy. Only one patient (3%) had major (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III) donor site complications (surgical site infection due to tumor recurrence). Eleven patients (32%) had at least one major recipient site complication (surgical site infection [n = 1], total [n = 2] or partial [n = 1] flap loss, perineal dehiscence [n = 2], hematoma [n = 1], fistula [n = 5]). No incisional or perineal hernias were observed during follow-up. Ninety-day survival was 100%.

CONCLUSION

Pedicled DIEP flap reconstructions performed by experienced surgical teams had good outcomes for perineal or vaginal reconstruction, with low abdominal morbidity, in patients with advanced pelvic malignancies who had undergone median laparotomy. The risks and benefits of this procedure should be carefully evaluated preoperatively using clinical and imaging data.

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.

Negative pressure wound management in perineal wound status post abdominoperineal resection and extralevator abdominoperineal excision: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

PURPOSE

Recent evidence-based publications disclosed that negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) may reduce the incidence rate of surgical site infection (SSI) and length of stay (LOS) compared with conventional drainage in patient status post abdominoperineal resection (APR) and extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE).

METHODS

Data sources: Eligible randomized controlled trials and retrospective and prospective studies published before January 2023 were retrieved from databases (Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase).

STUDY SELECTION

(a) The study involved patients undergoing ELAPE or APR with postoperative NPWT; (b) the study compared NWPT with conventional drainage and reported at least one outcome of interest (i.e., SSI); and (c) the study provided adequate information to calculate the effect estimated for meta-analysis.

INTERVENTIONS

We calculated the odds ratio (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The measure outcomes included surgical site infection(SSI) and length of stay (LOS).

RESULTS

Eight articles, involving 547 patients, met the selection criteria. Compared to conventional drainage, NPWT was associated with a significantly lower SSI rate (fixed effect, OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.18-0.45; I² = 0%) in eight studies and 547 patients. Besides, NPWT was associated with a shorter LOS (fixed effect, MD - 2.00; CI - 2.60 to - 1.39; I² = 0%) than conventional drainage in three studies and 305 patients. In a trial sequential analysis, the cumulative number of patients in the analyses of both outcomes exceeded the required information size and surpassed the significance boundary in favor of NPWT, suggesting conclusive results.

CONCLUSION

NPWT is superior to conventional drainage in both SSI rate and LOS, and the statistical power of SSI and LOS are confirmed by trial sequential analysis.

Robotic surgery for locally advanced T4 rectal cancer: feasibility and oncological quality

For T4 rectal tumours and local recurrences (LR) of rectal cancer, a radical resection beyond TME, sometimes by multi-visceral resection, is important to obtain safe margins and improve survival. The use of the laparoscopic approach (LA) for these cases is still controversial and associated with a high rate of conversion. However, robotic surgery might offer some advantages that can overcome some of the limitations of LA. Therefore, we aimed to analyse the postoperative outcomes and medium-term oncological results of robotic surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer (pathological T4) and LR. A retrospective analysis was performed including patients who had undergone robotic rectal resection in a single institution over an 11-year period, and had a T4 tumour confirmed in the pathological report. Primary endpoint was to analyse postoperative complications (30-day) and the rate of conversion. Secondary endpoints include pathological assessment of the quality of the specimen, local recurrence and survival [2-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS)]. A total of 41 patients were analysed, including a total of 24 patients (60%) that required a multivisceral resection. The median distance from the tumour to the anorectal junction was 7 (4-12) cm. Conversion to open surgery was necessary in 2 cases (5%). The overall morbidity rate was 78% (n = 32), with 37% of major complications, most of them urinary (n = 7). Median length of hospital stay (LOS) was 13 (7-27) days. The 30-day mortality rate was 7% (n = 3). An R0 resection was achieved in 85.4% of the cases (n = 35) due to 6 cases of the positive circumferential resection margin. 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) for the T4 tumours were 72% and 85%, respectively. There were 8 cases of local recurrence (22.2%); 6 of them met the selection criteria for salvage surgery. Robotic surgery for locally advanced T4 rectal cancer and multi-visceral resections is safe and feasible, with a low rate of conversion and an acceptable rate of postoperative morbidity in this subgroup of patients. Oncological results have shown to be comparable with the laparoscopic series published, preserving a good quality of the resected specimen. However, comparative studies and a longer follow-up period is needed to confirm the oncologic findings and to support the general adoption of the robotic system for these complex interventions.

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.

Retrospective analysis of risk factors for postoperative perineal hernia after endoscopic abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer

Background

In contrast to open-surgery abdominoperineal excision (APE) for rectal cancer, postoperative perineal hernia (PPH) is reported to increase after extralevator APE and endoscopic surgery. In this study, therefore, we aimed to determine the risk factors for PPH after endoscopic APE.

Methods

A total 73 patients who underwent endoscopic APE for rectal cancer were collected from January 2009 to March 2020, and the risk factors for PPH were analyzed retrospectively.

Results

Nineteen patients (26%) developed PPH after endoscopic APE, and the diagnosis of PPH was made at 9–393 days (median: 183 days) after initial surgery. Logistic regression analysis showed that absence of pelvic peritoneal closure alone increased the incidence of PPH significantly (odds ratio; 13.76, 95% confidence interval; 1.48–1884.84, p = 0.004).

Conclusions

This preliminary study showed that pelvic peritoneal closure could prevent PPH after endoscopic APE.

Is it worthwhile to perform closure of the pelvic peritoneum in laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal resection?

PURPOSE

There is no uniformity in the use of closure of the pelvic peritoneum (CPP) after laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE). This study aimed to evaluate the short-term outcomes of CPP after ELAPE and provide supporting evidence for the performance of CPP in laparoscopic ELAPE.

METHODS

Patients with rectal cancer who underwent ELAPE from January 2014 to April 2019 were retrospectively investigated. CPP was routinely performed unless it was not feasible. The main outcome was the difference in the occurrence of perineal hernia (PH), small bowel obstruction (SBO) and perineal wound complications between laparoscopic and open ELAPE, which were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves.

RESULTS

Of the 244 patients included, 104 received laparoscopic ELAPE, and 140 received open ELAPE. Patients in the laparoscopic group suffered a higher incidence of PH (11.5% (12/104) vs. 5.0% (7/140), p = 0.049), SBO (10.6% (11/104) vs. 7.9% (11/140), p = 0.433) and major perineal wound complications (12.5% (13/104) vs. 7.9% (11/140), p = 0.228) than those in the open group. Multivariate analysis showed that no-CPP was an independent risk factor for the occurrence of PH (p = 0.022, OR 3.436, 95% CI 1.199-9.848) and major perineal wound complications (p = 0.012, OR 3.683, 95% CI 1.337-10.146).

CONCLUSION

In this comparative cohort study with a risk of allocation bias, CPP was associated with a lower incidence of radiological PH and major perineal wound complications regardless of the surgical approach. Thus, we believe CPP could serve as an option L-ELAPE for the prevention of perineal complications. To further determine the impact of CPP on postoperative complications after ELAPE, a prospective multicentre study is needed.

Pelvic floor peritoneum reconstruction is a protective factor for defecation dysfunction after laparoscopic anterior resection in patients with middle and low rectal cancer

PURPOSE

The pelvic cavity is a monolithic structure whose integrity plays an important role in the pelvic organ function. Currently, pelvic floor peritoneum reconstruction (PFPR) is rarely performed during laparoscopic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer patients. This study evaluated the effect of PFPR using barbed wire during laparoscopic surgery on the postoperative defecation function in middle and low rectal cancer patients.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study involving a total of 252 middle and low rectal cancer patients who had been subjected to laparoscopic-assisted anterior resection of rectal cancer at Shanghai Changhai Hospital from March 2018 to April 2020. The Wexner and low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) scores were used to evaluate the postoperative defecation function among patients. A Wexner score ≥ 8 and LARS score ≥ 30 were considered to indicate major defecation dysfunction.

RESULTS

A total of 229 patients (52 patients subjected to PFPR) were followed up, and the Wexner and LARS scores were recorded. The follow-up rate was 90.87%, the mean follow-up time was 22.88 ± 6.93 months, the stoma rate was 64.29%, the ileostomy reduction surgical rate was 90.74%, and the stoma duration was 7.64 ± 2.94 months. Regarding the assessment of postoperative defecation dysfunction using the Wexner score, a multivariate analysis revealed that a long operation time (odds ratio [OR], 0.991; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.984-0.999, p = 0.026) and radiotherapy (OR, 0.352; 95% CI, 0.156-0.797, p = 0.012) were independent risk factors for major defecation dysfunction, while a high tumor location (OR, 1.318; 95% CI, 1.151-1.657, p = 0.001) and PFPR (OR, 4.770; 95% CI, 1.435-15.857, p = 0.011) were independent protective factors for major defecation dysfunction. Regarding the assessment of the postoperative defecation function using the LARS score, a multivariate analysis revealed that a high tumor location (OR, 1.293; 95% CI, 1.125-1.486, p < 0.001) and PFPR (OR, 3.010; 95% CI, 1.345-6.738, p = 0.007) were independent protective factors for major defecation dysfunction. A subgroup analysis showed that the postoperative Wexner score (3.13 ± 2.79 vs. 4.71 ± 3.45 p = 0.003) and LARS score (21.77 ± 8.62 vs. 25.14 ± 8.78 p = 0.015) were lower for patients with PFPR than for patients without PFPR. Regarding patients with low rectal cancer, those with PFPR had a lower LARS score than those without it (23.62 ± 8.94 vs. 28.40 ± 7.90, p = 0.022), but there was no significant difference in the Wexner score between the groups. A total of 9.76% of patients with PFPR and 48.89% of those without PFPR showed an intestinal accumulation in the sacral front (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

PFPR and a high tumor location are protective factors for postoperative defecation dysfunction in middle and low rectal cancer patients. PFPR can be routinely performed during laparoscopic surgery.

Transperineal minimally invasive abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer: standardized technique and clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Despite the increasing utilization of transanal total mesorectal excision as a promising approach for low rectal cancer, the feasibility and safety of transperineal minimally invasive abdominoperineal resection (tp-APR) remain unclear.

METHODS

In total, 25 patients who underwent tp-APR between April 2017 and May 2020 (tp-APR group) and 27 patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic APR between May 2009 and September 2016 (lap-APR group) for low rectal cancer were enrolled in this retrospective study. Clinical outcomes were compared between the groups before and after propensity score matching. The primary outcome was the incidence of the overall postoperative complications with Clavien-Dindo grade II or above. Standardized technique of tp-APR was also demonstrated.

RESULTS

On comparison, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and overall postoperative complications with Clavien-Dindo grade II or above were significantly less in the tp-APR group both before and after propensity score matching. The rates of urinary disturbance and perineal wound infection were significantly less in the tp-APR group after matching. Further, postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the tp-APR group both before and after matching. However, pathological outcomes did not differ between the groups before and after matching. There has been no local recurrence in the tp-APR group with a median follow-up period of 18 months.

CONCLUSION

Standardized tp-APR for low rectal cancer is feasible and seems superior to conventional laparoscopic APR in terms of short-term outcomes. Further larger-scale studies with a longer follow-up period are required to evaluate oncological outcomes.

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.

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.

Continuous Negative Pressure Drainage with Intermittent Irrigation Leaded to a Risk Reduction of Perineal Surgical Site Infection Following Laparoscopic Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision for Low Rectal Cancer

Purpose

High rate of perineal surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common complication following abdominoperineal resection (APR), especially for extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE). The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of continuous negative pressure drainage combined with intermittent irrigation (CNPDCII) in the presacral space on the perineal SSI following laparoscopic ELAPE for low rectal cancer.

Patients and Methods

The clinical data of 99 patients with low rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic ELAPE surgery were retrospectively analyzed. Among the 99 patients, 46 patients received CNPDCII and 53 patients received conventional drainage in the presacral space after ELAPE. Self-made irrigation drainage tube: took a silicone drainage tube, cut 3 side holes at every 2cm intervals at the front end, and fixed a flexible tube of an intravenous needle at the front end of the silicone drainage tube. The conventional drainage tube or self-made irrigation drainage tube was placed in the presacral space and poked out from the inside of the ischial tuberosity. The incidence of SSI and other perioperative indicators between the two groups was compared within 30 days after surgery.

Results

There was no statistical difference in clinicopathological features between the two groups of patients (p>0.05). A statistically lower rate of SSI was found in CNPDCII group (17.4%, 8/46) than the conventional drainage group (35.8%, 19/53). The drainage tube retention time (7.8±1.2 d VS 9.4±1.6 d) and the postoperative hospital stay (9.7±1.4 d VS 11.9±2.3 d) in CNPDCII group were significantly shortened than the conventional drainage group. There was no statistical difference in operating theatre time and intraoperative blood loss between the two groups. Multivariate analysis confirmed that CNPDCII was an independent protective factor for SSI after ELAPE.

Conclusion

CNPDCII can effectively reduce the incidence of SSI following laparoscopic ELAPE, which is simple, safe and effective.

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.

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.

Perineal Wound Closure Following Abdominoperineal Resection and Pelvic Exenteration for Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Simple Summary

Abdominoperineal resection (APR) and pelvic exenteration (PE) for the treatment of cancer (mainly anal and rectal cancers) require extensive pelvic resection with a high rate of postoperative complications. The objective of this work was to systematically review and meta-analyze the effects of vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap (VRAMf) and mesh closure on perineal morbidity following APR and PE. The studies were distributed as follows: Group A comparing primary closure (PC) and VRAMf, Group B comparing PC and mesh closure, Group C comparing PC and VRAMf in PE. The meta-analysis of Groups A and B showed PC to be associated with an increase in the rate of total and major perineal wound complications. PC was associated with a decrease in total and major perineal complications in Group C.

Abstract

Background. Abdominoperineal resection (APR) and pelvic exenteration (PE) for the treatment of cancer require extensive pelvic resection with a high rate of postoperative complications. The objective of this work was to systematically review and meta-analyze the effects of vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap (VRAMf) and mesh closure on perineal morbidity following APR and PE (mainly for anal and rectal cancers). Methods. We searched PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE for eligible studies as of the year 2000. After data extraction, a meta-analysis was performed to compare perineal wound morbidity. The studies were distributed as follows: Group A comparing primary closure (PC) and VRAMf, Group B comparing PC and mesh closure, and Group C comparing PC and VRAMf in PE. Results. Our systematic review yielded 18 eligible studies involving 2180 patients (1206 primary closures, 647 flap closures, 327 mesh closures). The meta-analysis of Groups A and B showed PC to be associated with an increase in the rate of total (Group A: OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43–0.71; p < 0.01/Group B: OR 0.54, CI 0.17–1.68; p = 0.18) and major perineal wound complications (Group A: OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.35–0.68; p < 0.001/Group B: OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.12–1.17; p < 0.01). PC was associated with a decrease in total (OR 2.46, 95% CI 1.39–4.35; p < 0.01) and major (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.90–3.08; p = 0.1) perineal complications in Group C. Conclusions. Our results confirm the contribution of the VRAMf in reducing major complications in APR. Similarly, biological prostheses offer an interesting alternative in pelvic reconstruction. For PE, an adapted reconstruction must be proposed with specialized expertise.

The application possibility of acellular dermal matrix decorated with nano-silver in the reconstruction of contaminated abdominal wall

Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is a biomaterial, which commonly used for repair of tissue defects; however, infection is the main factor underlying the failure of treatments involving ADM. To enhance the anti-infection ability of ADM, we constructed a new form of ADM that was decorated with nano-silver ('NS-ADM'). The introduction of nano-silver did not destroy the decellularized structure of ADM, and no significant difference was detected with regards to the maximum tensile force when compared between NS-ADM and ADM (P = 0.351). NS-ADM was not cytotoxic to cell growth when the concentration of nano-silver solution ≤ 25 ppm and exhibited strong antibacterial activity in vitro. Besides, when rats were inoculated with 104 CFU/mL, there were significantly lower bacterial counts in the NS-ADM group than in the ADM group when assessed seven days after surgery (P = 0.047); no significant differences were detected on days 14 and 28. Although there were no significant differences in bacterial counts on days 7, 14, or 21 between the two groups (rats were inoculated with 106 CFU/mL), the number of rats showing reduced bacterial counts or clearing was higher in the NS-ADM group than in the ADM group. Rats that were inoculated with 108 CFU/mL showed repair failure. Overall, NS-ADM is a promising antibacterial biomaterial for repairing contaminated soft-tissue defects, in which antibacterial properties are superior to ADM. The antibacterial activity of NS-ADM was limited for severe infections, and further in vivo studies are needed to evaluate its efficacy and biosafety.

RECURRENT PERINEAL HERNIA — LAPAROSCOPIC SURGICAL TREATMENT: CLINICAL CASE

Background: Recurrent postoperative perineal hernia is a rare complication of such operation as posterior pelvic evisceration. This condition can reduce the quality of life in the postoperative period and requires surgical restoration of the impaired pelvic anatomy.Clinical case: A 54-year old female patient applied to the MSU University clinic in July 2020 with the protrusion in the perineal area. She was diagnosed with recurrent perineal postoperative hernia. She was diagnosed with rectal cancer T4N1M0 and uterine dysplasia in 2017, 6 courses of neoadjuvant polychemoradiation therapy were performed; she underwent extralevator abdominal-perineal resection with uterine extirpation and the permanent colostomy formation in 2018. A perineal postoperative hernia was diagnosed in March 2020, perineal transabdominal plastic surgery was performed with a mesh implant. A recurrent perineal hernia was diagnosed in April 2020, the patient underwent laparoscopic alloplasty with a composite mesh implant. On the 9th postoperative day, she was discharged in a satisfactory condition without any complaints.Conclusion: Postoperative perineal hernia is a fairly rare complication in surgical practice. The recurrent rate is quite high. The insufficient number of patients, the short follow-up period and the wide range of surgical treatment methods do not allow evaluating the results adequately. It is necessary to conduct large randomized clinical trials to assess the efficacy of surgical interventions and to determine the indications for certain procedures.

A new surgical approach of direct perineal wound full-thick closure for perineal wound of abdominoperineal resection for rectal carcinoma: A prospective cohort trial

Perineal wound complications after APR have high morbidity in the colorectal surgical department. Although some approaches have been figured out to solve this clinical focus, the outcomes are still not satisfied. Herein, this prospective comparative clinical trial has been designed to evaluate a new surgical procedure of direct perineal wound full-thick closure (DPWC), compared with conventional perineal wound closure (CPWC), with hopes of making wound healing with less complications. In addition, an evaluation of an incision negative wound pressure therapy, as another focus in this field, was also analysed in the DPWC group. A total of 44 participants in our department were recruited from March 2018 to March 2020, divided into two groups randomly, CPWC group and DPWC group. The patients' characteristics, such as age, gender, BMI, smoking, alcohol consumption, comorbidities, CEA level, and high-risk of invasion, were recorded without statistical significance between the CPWC group and DPWC group. After the same standard abdominal phase, these two groups were performed in different perineal phases. And then, operative and postoperative outcomes were analysed with different statistical methods. Data on wound healing time and length of stay in the DPWC group were shorter than those in the CPWC group (P < .05). Furthermore, cases of wound infection within 30 days in the DPWC group were also less than that in the CPWC group (P < .05). However, no difference was found between the incisional negative pressure wound therapy assisted group (NPA group) and non- incisional negative pressure wound therapy assisted group (non-NPA group). During this study, hypoalbuminemia, as an independent high-risk factor, impacted perineal wound healing. (P = .0271) In conclusion, DPWC is a new surgical approach, which can lead to a better outcome than DPWC, and it can be another surgical procedure for clinicians. In addition, hypoalbuminemia should be interfered for avoiding perineal wound complications.

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.

Selection and Outcomes in Abdominoperineal Resection

Since the initial descriptions of the abdominoperineal resection by Sir William Ernest Miles which was then followed by the perfection of the total mesorectal excision by Professor Bill Heald, the surgical management of rectal cancer has made tremendous strides. However, even with the advent and sophistication of neoadjuvant therapy, there remains a formidable amount of patients requiring an abdominoperineal resection. The purpose of this review is to delineate the indication and selection process by which patients are determined to require an abdominoperineal resection, as well as the oncologic and overall outcomes associated with the operation.

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision for advanced low rectal cancer: Where to go

Since its introduction, extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) in the prone position has gained significant attention and recognition as an important surgical procedure for the treatment of advanced low rectal cancer. Most studies suggest that because of adequate resection and precise anatomy, ELAPE could decrease the rate of positive circumferential resection margins, intraoperative perforation, and may further decrease local recurrence rate and improve survival. Some studies show that extensive resection of pelvic floor tissue may increase the incidence of wound complications and urogenital dysfunction. Laparoscopic/robotic ELAPE and trans-perineal minimally invasive approach allow patients to be operated in the lithotomy position, which has advantages of excellent operative view, precise dissection and reduced postoperative complications. Pelvic floor reconstruction with biological mesh could significantly reduce wound complications and the duration of hospitalization. The proposal of individualized ELAPE could further reduce the occurrence of postoperative urogenital dysfunction and chronic perianal pain. The ELAPE procedure emphasizes precise anatomy and conforms to the principle of radical resection of tumors, which is a milestone operation for the treatment of advanced low rectal cancer.

A low incidence of perineal hernia when using a biological mesh after extralevator abdominoperineal excision with or without pelvic exenteration or distal sacral resection in locally advanced rectal cancer patients

Background

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE), abdominoperineal excision (APE) or pelvic exenteration (PE) with or without sacral resection (SR) for locally advanced rectal cancer leaves a significant defect in the pelvic floor. At first, this defect was closed primarily. To prevent perineal hernias, the use of a biological mesh to restore the pelvic floor has been increasing. The aim of this study, was to evaluate the outcome of the use of a biological mesh after ELAPE, APE or PE with/without SR.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted on patients who had ELAPE, APE or PE with/without SR with a biological mesh (Permacol™) for pelvic reconstruction in rectal cancer in our center between January 2012 and April 2015. The endpoints were the incidence of perineal herniation and wound healing complications.

Results

Data of 35 consecutive patients [22 men, 13 women; mean age 62 years (range 31–77 years)] were reviewed. Median follow-up was 24 months (range 0.4–64 months). Perineal hernia was reported in 3 patients (8.6%), and was asymptomatic in 2 of them. The perineal wound healed within 3 months in 37.1% (n = 13), within 6 months in 51.4% (n = 18) and within 1 year in 62.9% (n = 22). In 17.1% (n = 6), the wound healed after 1 year. It was not possible to confirm perineal wound healing in the remaining 7 patients (20.0%) due to death or loss to follow-up. Wound dehiscence was reported in 18 patients (51.4%), 9 of whom needed vacuum-assisted closure therapy, surgical closure or a flap reconstruction.

Conclusions

Closure of the perineal wound after (EL)APE with a biological mesh is associated with a low incidence of perineal hernia. Wound healing complications in this high-risk group of patients are comparable to those reported in the literature.