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

Empty pelvis syndrome as a cause of major morbidity after pelvic exenteration: validation of a core data set

BACKGROUND

Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a potentially curative treatment for advanced pelvic cancers. However, PE procedures are associated with empty pelvis syndrome (EPS), a spectrum of complications including pelvic sepsis, sinus formation, fistulae, and bowel obstruction. Inconsistent reporting has impeded progress in understanding EPS. The PelvEx Collaborative introduced a core data set of descriptors and outcomes to address these issues and the aim of this study was to validate this data set.

METHODS

An observational cohort study applied the EPS core data set to a prospectively maintained PE database. Patterns of major and minor manifestations were evaluated; logistic regression was used to explore relationships between descriptors and outcomes, and inter-descriptor correlation was assessed using Cramer's V.

RESULTS

EPS occurred in 32.1% of patients (105 of 327) and was the leading cause of major morbidity. Infected pelvic collections (occurring in 23.5%) were associated with subsequent chronic sinus formation (OR 3.08, P = 0.01) and fistulae (P = 0.05). The risk of EPS increased with external beam radiotherapy (OR 1.01 per 1 Gy, P = 0.01), sacrectomy (OR 3.78, P < 0.001), total cystectomy (OR 2.46, P = 0.001), internal iliac vessel ligation (unilateral OR 1.94, P = 0.045; bilateral OR 3.65, P < 0.001), and infralevator exenteration (OR 3.69, P < 0.001). Omentoplasty reduced pelvic bowel obstruction (OR 0.27, P = 0.004) and perineal flaps were linked to a higher rate of reconstruction-related major morbidity compared with biological mesh alone (20.8% versus 1.2% respectively, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

The PelvEx Collaborative core data set standardizes reporting of EPS, with this study detailing the acute and chronic complications arising as a consequence. Biological mesh was associated with reduced reconstruction-related morbidity compared with perineal flaps. Further validation in additional cohorts is required to address potential confounding factors.

Pelvic inlet closure with bladder peritoneal flap reduces postoperative ileus after abdominoperineal resection

BACKGROUND

Abdominoperineal resection (APR) is the standard treatment for locally advanced distal rectal cancer (LADRC) following neoadjuvant treatment when sphincter-preserving procedures are inapplicable. However, complications such as perineal site infection, perineal hernia and postoperative ileus remain ongoing challenges. We aimed to compare the rate of postoperative ileus due to pelvic incarceration in APR patients with/without pelvic inlet closure.

METHODS

LADRC patients, who underwent APR with/without pelvic inlet closure between January 2016 and September 2022 at a comprehensive cancer center were analyzed retrospectively. After laparoscopic APR, the pelvic inlet was closed with a bladder peritoneal flap. A U-shaped peritoneal flap, up to approximately 15 × 20 cm in size, was peeled off from the dome of the bladder with its base at the posterosuperior part of the bladder.

RESULTS

Of the 80 patients included in the analysis, 27 (34%) underwent laparoscopic APR with pelvic inlet closure and 53 (66%) had no pelvic inlet closure. There was no significant difference in age, mean body mass index and American Society of Anesthesiologists score among both groups. Patients with a pelvic inlet closure had a significantly lower postoperative ileus rate because of incarceration [0 vs. 17%, n = 9/53; (P = 0.03)] and a shorter hospital stay [6.74 ± 4.21 vs. 9.00 ± 5.99 days; P = 0.03]. The rate of perineal surgical site infection (SSI) [5/27 (18.5%) vs. 14/53 (26.4%); P = 0.61) was lower in the laparoscopic APR with pelvic inlet closure group, but this was not significant.

CONCLUSION

Pelvic inlet closure using a bladder peritoneal flap following APR is a safe and feasible procedure associated with reduced postoperative ileus due to pelvic incarceration rates, emergent surgical interventions due to pelvic incarceration and shorter hospital stay.

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.

Personalized Decisional Algorithms for Soft Tissue Defect Reconstruction after Abdominoperineal Resection for Low-Lying Rectal Cancers

BACKGROUND

Abdominoperineal resection (APR)-the standard surgical procedure for low-lying rectal cancer (LRC)-leads to significant perineal defects, posing considerable reconstruction challenges that, in selected cases, necessitate the use of plastic surgery techniques (flaps).

PURPOSE

To develop valuable decision algorithms for choosing the appropriate surgical plan for the reconstruction of perineal defects.

METHODS

Our study included 245 LRC cases treated using APR. Guided by the few available publications in the field, we have designed several personalized decisional algorithms for managing perineal defects considering the following factors: preoperative radiotherapy, intraoperative position, surgical technique, perineal defect volume, and quality of tissues and perforators. The algorithms have been improved continuously during the entire period of our study based on the immediate and remote outcomes.

RESULTS

In 239 patients following APR, the direct closing procedure was performed versus 6 cases in which we used various types of flaps for perineal reconstruction. Perineal incisional hernia occurred in 12 patients (5.02%) with direct perineal wound closure versus in none of those reconstructed using flaps.

CONCLUSION

The reduced rate of postoperative complications suggests the efficiency of the proposed decisional algorithms; however, more extended studies are required to categorize them as evidence-based management guide tools.

Uterine retroversion and gluteal transposition flap for postoperative perineal evisceration after extralevator abdominoperineal resection

Anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC) is the most common histological subtype of malignant tumor affecting the anal canal. Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is the first-line treatment in nearly all cases, ensuring complete clinical response in up to 80% of patients. Abdominoperineal resection (APR) is typically reserved as salvage therapy in those patients with persistent or recurrent tumor after CRT. In locally advanced tumors, an extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE), which entails excision of the anal canal and levator muscles, might be indicated to obtain negative resection margins. In this setting, the combination of highly irradiated tissue and large surgical defect increases the risk of developing postoperative perineal wound complications. One of the most dreadful complications is perineal evisceration (PE), which requires immediate surgical treatment to avoid irreversibile organ damage. Different techniques have been described to prevent perineal complications after ELAPE, although none of them have reached consensus. In this technical note, we present a case of PE after ELAPE performed for a recurrent ASCC. Perineal evisceration was approached by combining a uterine retroversion with a gluteal transposition flap to obtain wound healing and reinforcement of the pelvic floor at once, when a mesh placement is not recommended.

VRAM Flap for Pelvic Floor Reconstruction after Pelvic Exenteration and Abdominoperineal Excision

Due to the still large number of patients diagnosed with pelvic neoplasms (colorectal, gynecological, and urological) in advanced stages right from the initial diagnosis, surgery represents the mainstay of treatment, often implying wide, eventually multi-organ resections in order to achieve negative surgical margins. Perineal wound morbidity, particularly in extralevator abominoperineal excision, leads to complications and local infection rates of up to 40%. Strategies to reduce postoperative wound complications are being pursued to address this issue. The VRAM flap remains the gold standard for autologous reconstruction after pelvic oncological resection; it was initially designed for abdominal wall defects and later expanded for large pelvic tissue defects. The flap's application is based on its physical characteristics, including abundant tissue and a generous skin paddle, which effectively obliterates dead space after exenterations. The generous skin paddle offers good cosmetic and functional outcomes at the recipient site. This article describes the case of a patient histopathologically diagnosed with stage IIIA squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix who received multimodal onco-surgical treatment. The surgical mainstay of this treatment is pelvic exenteration. Pelvic reconstruction after this major surgery was performed using a vertical flap with the rectus abdominis.

Perineal bowel evisceration after extralevator abdominoperineal excision and vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap closure

INTRODUCTION

Perineal bowel evisceration is a rare complication after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE). This surgical technique is used to resect low rectal and anal cancer, with a lower likelihood of positive surgical margins, but resulting in a larger perineal defect. A vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) flap allows filling of the empty pelvic space and closure of the defect in the pelvic floor.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 77-year-old woman, with a hysterectomy in her medical history, underwent an ELAPE followed by reconstruction of the perineal defect with a VRAM flap after neoadjuvant radiotherapy for a moderately differentiated invasive adenocarcinoma of the distal rectum. The postoperative course was complicated with a herniation of the perineal wound and evisceration of a bowel loop.

CONCLUSION

Closure of the perineal defect after ELAPE remains a challenge, especially in cases where several risk factors for delayed wound healing, flap failure and perineal herniation are present.

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.

Purse string closure of perineal defects after abdominoperineal excision

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to describe a new technique of perineal closure following abdominoperineal excision (APE) using purse-string perineal skin closure (PSPC).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between January 2016 and May 2021, 15 consecutives patients who had an APE procedure were included in this retrospective single-center study. All indications of APE were considered, as well as all types of APE. We analyzed the patient characteristics and peri-operative features, including overall (Clavien 1 to 5) and severe (Clavien 3 and 4) postoperative morbidity, length of stay (LOS), and long-term results (median time to perineal wound closure and rate of perineal incisional hernia).

RESULTS

The patients included 11 men and four women, with a mean age of 64 ± 13 [33-80] years. The indication of APE was an epidermoid carcinoma of the anal canal (n = 5) or an adenocarcinoma of the rectum (n = 10). The mean operating time was 220 ± 88.64 [70-360] min. The overall morbidity rate was 60%, the severe morbidity rate 26%, and reoperation rate 26%. The median length of stay was 9 ± 6.5 days. After a mean follow-up of 23.5 ± 20.3 months, the median time to perineal wound closure was 96 ± 60 days, the persistent perineal sinus rate was 6% (n = 2), and one patient developed a perineal incisional hernia.

CONCLUSION

Purse-string closure of perineal wounds is a safe and effective technique for perineal wound closure after APE. The short LOS allowed an early return home.

Feasibility of Perineal Defect Reconstruction with Simplified Fasciocutaneous Inferior Gluteal Artery Perforator (IGAP) Flaps after Tumor Resection of the Lower Rectum: Incidence and Outcome in an Interdisciplinary Approach

BACKGROUND

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) is a relatively new surgical technique for low rectal cancers, enabling a more radical approach than conventional abdominoperineal excision (APE) with a potentially better oncological outcome. To date, no standard exists for reconstruction after extended or extralevator approaches of abdominoperineal (ELAPE) resection for lower gastrointestinal cancer or inflammatory tumors. In the recent literature, techniques with myocutaneous flaps, such as the VY gluteal flap, the pedicled gracilis flap, or the pedicled rectus abdominis flaps (VRAM) are primarily described. We propose a tailored concept with the use of bilateral adipo-fasciocutaneous inferior gluteal artery perforator (IGAP) advancement flaps in VY fashion after ELAPE surgery procedures. This retrospective cohort study analyzes the feasibility of this concept and is, to our knowledge, one of the largest published series of IGAP flaps in the context of primary closure after ELAPE procedures.

METHODS

In a retrospective cohort analysis, we evaluated all the consecutive patients with rectal resections from Jan 2017 to Sep 2021. All the patients with abdominoperineal resection were included in the study evaluation. The primary endpoint of the study was the proportion of plastic reconstruction and inpatient discharge.

RESULTS

Out of a total of 560 patients with rectal resections, 101 consecutive patients with ELAPE met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study evaluation. The primary direct defect closure was performed in 72 patients (71.3%). In 29 patients (28.7%), the defect was closed with primary unilateral or bilateral IGAP flaps in VY fashion. The patients' mean age was 59.4 years with a range of 25-85 years. In 84 patients, the indication of the operation was lower rectal cancer or anal cancer recurrence, and non-oncological resections were performed in 17 patients. Surgery was performed in a minimally invasive abdominal approach in combination with open perineal extralevatoric abdominoperineal resection (ELAPE) and immediate IGAP flap reconstruction. The rate of perineal early complications after plastic reconstruction was 19.0%, which needed local revision due to local infection. All these interventions were conducted under general anesthesia (Clavien-Dindo IIIb). The mean length of the hospital stay was 14.4 days after ELAPE, ranging from 3 to 53 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Since radical resection with a broad margin is the standard choice in primary, sphincter-infiltrating rectal cancer and recurrent anal cancer surgery in combination with ELAPE, the choice technique for pelvic floor reconstruction is under debate and there is no consensus. Using IGAP flaps is a reliable, technical, easy, and safe option, especially in wider defects on the pelvic floor with minimal donor site morbidity and an acceptable complication (no flap necrosis) rate. The data for hernia incidence in the long term are not known.

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.

Comparison of Perineal Closure Techniques after Abdominoperineal Resections for Carcinoma of the Anus

BACKGROUND

Perineal reconstruction following salvage APR's for squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA) are scant with conflicting results from large and single center studies. We analyzed these techniques taking into account sociodemographic and oncologic variables.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study from 2016-2019 using a targeted ACS/NSQIP database stratified into primary closure (PC), abdominal myocutaneous (AM), lower extremity (LE), and omental pedicled (OP) flaps. We analyzed major and wound complications through univariate and multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 766 patients were analyzed, 512 (67%) had PC, 196 (25%) AM, 36 (5%) OP and 22 (3%) LE. Rates of chemotherapy and radiation within 90 days were similar between the groups. Having 2 or more additional organs resected was more common for the AM group (AM 4.1%, PC 1.6%, OP 3.3%, LE 0%). Overall, major complication rate was 41% (n = 324). Primary closure had 35.0%, OP 47.2%, AM 52.6%, and LE 45.5%. Wound complication rate was highest in AM with 11.7%, followed by OP 8.3%, PC 5.9%, and LE 0%. The multivariate regression analysis demonstrated none of the closure techniques to be associated with increasing or decreasing the probability of having a major or wound complication. Morbidity probability was the sole predictor of major complication (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.04-1.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Myocutaneous and omental flaps are associated with comparable wound and major complications when taking into account the baseline, oncologic and perioperative variables that drive the clinical decision making when selecting a perineal reconstruction.

A V–Y fasciocutaneous flap for perineal reconstruction following abdominoperineal resection: quicker and better than a myocutaneous gluteal flap?

Background

Abdominoperineal resection in patients with anorectal malignancies may require flap reconstruction for large perineal defects as an adjunct to the oncologic surgery. Perineal reconstruction should be timely, safe, and yield good long-term functional results. There is no agreement on the ideal approach.

Methods

We performed a retrospective observational cohort study to compare clinical outcomes and post-operative complications between a musculocutaneous gluteal flap and a fasciocutaneous V–Y flap for perineal reconstruction. We included all patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection at Karolinska University Hospital between 2016 and 2019. Patient demographics and comorbidities, as well as treatment data, post-operative complications, and follow-up data, were collected from medical records.

Results

A total of 44 patients were included with a mean age of 65 years where 73% were men. Reconstruction was made with a musculocutaneous gluteal flap in 19 patients (43%) and with a fasciocutaneous V–Y flap in 25 patients (57%). Flap-related post-operative complications occurred in 39% of the patients and the incidence did not differ between the groups (p = 0.831). Neither operative time, time to ambulant mobility, time to drain removal, nor time to epidural removal differed between the groups (p > 0.05). Four patients in the gluteal flap group and one patient in the V–Y flap group presented with long-term complications.

Conclusions

Post-operative complications are common after perineal reconstruction following abdominoperineal resection regardless of reconstructive approach. Our study confirms that both a fasciocutaneous and a musculocutaneous flap are acceptable options for perineal reconstruction.

Level of evidence: Level III, risk/prognostic study.

Long-term follow-up of bilateral gracilis reconstruction following extra-levator abdominoperineal excision

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal operations such as an extra-levator abdominoperineal (elAPE) excision for locally advanced or recurrent cancer create a significant perineal tissue deficit. Options for perineal reconstruction include bilateral pedicled gracilis muscle flaps (BPGMF). Fashioning the gracili into a 'weave' creates a muscular sling that supports pelvic contents and is a novel technique. Our series reports the outcomes of the BPGMF in 50 patients undergoing surgery for pelvic cancer.

METHOD

This is a retrospective, single-centre study of patients undergoing reconstruction of perineal defects using BPGMF. All surgeries took place between January 2008 and February 2021. The primary outcome measured was perineal wound healing. The secondary outcomes measured were complications of surgical sites and length of hospital stay (short term), flap integrity on follow-up imaging and functional outcomes (long term).

RESULTS

Fifty patients underwent perineal reconstruction using BPGMF (26 males). The median age was 62 years. The 30-day mortality was 2% (n = 1). The average follow-up period was 2 years. Complete perineal wound healing was 86% (42/49) at outpatient follow-up. Complication rates for the donor site and reconstructed site were 14% and 22%, respectively. Complications included infection (2% donor site, 12% perineum), haematoma (4% donor site), dehiscence (2% donor site, 4% perineum) and seroma (3% donor site, 2% perineum).

CONCLUSION

BPGMF offers a reliable and technically simple muscle flap to reconstruct large perineal defects. The muscle flap integrity appears maintained on follow-up imaging despite a lack of flap monitoring tools. This cohort had minimal functional impairment following BPGMF.

A Comparison of Perineal Myocutaneous Flaps Following Abdominoperineal Excision of the Rectum for Anorectal Pathology

BACKGROUND

Flap-based reconstruction following abdominoperineal resection has been used to address the resultant soft tissue defect and reduce postoperative wound complications. Vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flaps have been the traditional choice, but locoregional flaps have attracted attention in minimally invasive resection because they avoid additional abdominal dissection. However, few data exist comparing flap types.

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes for different types of perineal reconstruction in patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection exclusively for anorectal pathology.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective comparative study.

SETTING

This study was conducted at a large, tertiary referral institution.

PATIENTS

Following Institutional Review Board approval, prospectively maintained clinical and financial databases were interrogated and cross-referenced for patients undergoing proctectomy or abdominoperineal resection with flap reconstruction from 2007 to 2018. Patients with primary gynecological or urological pathology were excluded.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was flap complication rate. Secondary outcomes included perineal hernia rate, donor site complications, emergency department consult after discharge, readmission <90 days, and length of stay. Data were analyzed using univariate and multivariate techniques.

RESULTS

A total of 135 patients (79 female, median age 58 years) were included: 68 rectus, 52 gluteal, and 15 gracilis flap reconstructions. Median follow-up was 46 months. Rates of both major and minor flap complications were similar for rectus and gluteal flaps, even when controlling for differences between groups via multivariate analysis ( p > 0.9), including extent of resection and use of mesh. For all flaps, American Society of Anesthesiology score ≥3 was the only independent predictor of major, but not minor, flap complications. For rectus and gluteal flaps, smoking, female sex, and American Society of Anesthesiology score ≥3 were independent predictors of major flap complications ( p < 0.05).

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its retrospective nature and potential selection bias associated with flap choice; it was also impossible to quantify defect size.

CONCLUSION

Gluteal flaps have similar complication rates to rectus flaps and may be considered for patients who are otherwise suitable for minimally invasive abdominoperineal resection. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B866 .Una comparación de los colgajos miocutáneos perineales después de la escisión abdominoperineal del recto para patología anorectal.

ANTECEDENTES

La reconstrucción con colgajo después de la resección abdominoperineal se ha utilizado para abordar el defecto de tejido blando resultante y reducir las complicaciones postoperatorias de la herida. Los colgajos miocutáneos verticales del recto abdominal han sido la elección tradicional, pero los colgajos locorregionales han atraído la atención en la resección mínimamente invasiva porque evitan la disección abdominal adicional. Sin embargo, existen pocos datos que comparen los tipos de colgajos.

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.

Outcomes of perineal reconstruction with inferior gluteal artery myocutaneous flaps and primary closure following abdominoperineal resection

BACKGROUND

Perineal wound morbidity following abdominoperineal resection (APR) is a significant challenge. Myocutaneous flap-based techniques have been developed to overcome morbidity associated with perineal reconstruction. We reviewed outcomes for patients undergoing APR in a hospital that performs inferior gluteal artery myocutaneous (IGAM) island transposition flaps and primary closure (PC) for perineal reconstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective study of patients who underwent APR for malignancy between January 2012 and March 2020 was performed and outcomes between IGAM reconstruction and PC compared. Primary outcomes were wound infection and dehiscence. Secondary outcomes included return to theatre, operative time, length of stay, flap loss and perineal hernia incidence.

RESULTS

One-hundred and two patients underwent APR, with 50 (49%) who had PC and 52 (51%) had IGAM flap reconstructions. There were no differences between each group with regards to wound infection (23 vs. 22%, P = 0.55) or wound dehiscence (25 vs. 24%, P = 0.92). Thirteen (25%) IGAM patients required a return to theatre compared to three PC patients (6%) (P = 0.008). IGAM procedures required twice the overall operative time (506 vs. 240 min, P = 0.001) with no differences between groups when comparing the APR component (250 vs. 240 min, P = 0.225). The IGAM group had a longer length of stay (median 13 days vs. 9 days, P = 0.001). Only one IGAM flap was lost and no symptomatic hernias were identified.

CONCLUSION

Perineal closure technique did not affect the incidence of wound infection or dehiscence. Closure technique should be tailored to underlying patient characteristics and surgical pathology.

Management of Perineal Wounds Following Pelvic Surgery

Despite advancements in understanding and technique, there remain significant challenges in the management of a complex perineal wound following pelvic surgery. Complications including wound sepsis, fistulation, persistent sinus, and herniation produce additional morbidity and health care costs. This article details the methods of optimizing patient and operative factors to mitigate this risk, alongside strategies to deal with sequelae of wound failure.

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.

Cumulative 5-year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Biological Mesh With Primary Perineal Wound Closure After Extralevator Abdominoperineal Resection (BIOPEX-study)

OBJECTIVE

To determine long-term outcomes of a randomized trial (BIOPEX) comparing biological mesh and primary perineal closure in rectal cancer patients after extralevator abdominoperineal resection and preoperative radiotherapy, with a primary focus on symptomatic perineal hernia.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

BIOPEX is the only randomized trial in this field, which was negative on its primary endpoint (30-day wound healing).

METHODS

This was a posthoc secondary analysis of patients randomized in the BIOPEX trial to either biological mesh closure (n = 50; 2 dropouts) or primary perineal closure (n = 54; 1 dropout). Patients were followed for 5 years. Actuarial 5-year probabilities were determined by the Kaplan-Meier statistic.

RESULTS

Actuarial 5-year symptomatic perineal hernia rates were 7% (95% CI, 0-30) after biological mesh closure versus 30% (95% CI, 10-49) after primary closure (P = 0.006). One patient (2%) in the biomesh group underwent elective perineal hernia repair, compared to 7 patients (13%) in the primary closure group (P = 0.062). Reoperations for small bowel obstruction were necessary in 1/48 patients (2%) and 5/53 patients (9%), respectively (P = 0.208). No significant differences were found for chronic perineal wound problems, locoregional recurrence, overall survival, and main domains of quality of life and functional outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Symptomatic perineal hernia rate at 5-year follow-up after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer was significantly lower after biological mesh closure. Biological mesh closure did not improve quality of life or functional outcomes.

Short-term outcomes following beyond total mesorectal excision and reconstruction using myocutaneous flaps: A retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Beyond total mesorectal excision (bTME) offers long-term survival in patients with advanced pelvic malignancy. At Skåne University Hospital (SUS) Malmö in Sweden, the vertical rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (VRAM) and gluteal maximus (GM) flap have been used for perineal reconstruction to promote healing and functional outcomes after significant tissue loss. This study aims to examine 90-day overall and flap-specific complications in patients with advanced pelvic cancer treated with bTME and perineal flap reconstruction.

METHOD

This retrospective study conducted at SUS included patients undergoing surgery between January 01, 2010 and August 01, 2016. Patients' data were gathered through medical chart reviews. The Clavien-Dindo (CD) classification system was used to classify surgical and medical postoperative complications. Flap-specific complications were evaluated regardless of CD classification.

RESULTS

One hundred five patients (51 men, 54 women) underwent bTME surgery with perineal reconstruction, with VRAM flaps used in 27 (26%) patients, GM flaps in 51 (49%) patients and GM flaps with vaginal reconstruction in 27 (26%) patients. The 90-day mortality rate was one (1%), despite surgical CD ≥ III and/or medical CD ≥ II complications affecting 51 (48%) patients. Partial perineal dehiscence was noted in 45 (43%) patients, mostly treated conservatively. At the first outpatient postoperative visit (median, 42 days), flap healing was complete in 47 (45%) patients.

CONCLUSION

bTME surgery in pelvic cancer patients with perineal flap reconstruction using VRAM or GM flaps results in high overall and flap complication rates, but low mortality. Most complications can be conservatively treated.

European Society of Coloproctology guidance on the use of mesh in the pelvis in colorectal surgery

This is a comprehensive and rigorous review of currently available data on the use of mesh in the pelvis in colorectal surgery. This guideline outlines the limitations of available data and the challenges of interpretation, followed by best possible recommendations.

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 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.

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.

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.

Transperineal minimally invasive APE: preliminary outcomes in a multicenter cohort

Background

Abdominoperineal excision (APE) for rectal cancer is associated with a relatively high risk of positive margins and postoperative morbidity, particularly related to perineal wound healing problems. It is unknown whether the use of a minimally invasive approach for the perineal part of these procedures can improve postoperative outcomes without oncological compromise. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of minimally invasive transperineal abdominoperineal excision (TpAPE)

Methods

This multicenter retrospective cohort study included all patients having TpAPE for primary low rectal cancer. The primary endpoint was the intraoperative complication rate. Secondary endpoints included major morbidity (Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3), histopathology results, and perineal wound healing.

Results

A total of 32 TpAPE procedures were performed in five centers. A bilateral extralevator APE (ELAPE) was performed in 17 patients (53%), a unilateral ELAPE in 7 (22%), and an APE in 8 (25%). Intraoperative complications occurred in five cases (16%) and severe postoperative morbidity in three cases (9%). There were no perioperative deaths. A positive margin (R1) was observed in four patients (13%) and specimen perforation occurred in two (6%). The unilateral extralevator TpAPE group had worse specimen quality and a higher proportion of R1 resections than the bilateral ELAPE or standard APE groups. The rate of uncomplicated perineal wound healing was 53% (n = 17) and three patients (9%) required surgical reintervention.

Conclusions

TpAPE seems to be feasible with acceptable perioperative morbidity and a relatively low rate of perineal wound dehiscence, while histopathological outcomes remain suboptimal. Additional evaluation of the viability of this technique is needed in the form of a prospective trial with standardization of the procedure, indication, audit of outcomes and performed by surgeons with vast experience in transanal total mesorectal excision.

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.

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision versus abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) has become a popular procedure for low rectal cancer as compared with abdominoperineal excision (APE). No definitive answer has been achieved whether one is superior to the other. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ELAPE for low rectal cancer with meta-analysis.

METHODS

The Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed databases before September 2019 were comprehensively searched to retrieve comparative trials of ELAPE and APE for low rectal cancer. Pooled analyses of the perioperative variables, surgical complications, and oncological variables were performed. Odds ratio (OR) and mean differences (MD) from each trial were pooled using random or fixed effects model depending on the heterogeneity of the included studies. A subgroup analysis or a sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the potential source of heterogeneity when necessary.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 17 studies with 4049 patients, of whom 2248 (55.5%) underwent ELAPE and 1801 (44.5%) underwent APE. There were no statistical differences regarding the circumferential resection margin positivity (13.0% vs. 16.2%, OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.42-1.14, P = 0.15) and post-operative perineal wound complication rate (28.9% vs. 24.1%, OR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.75-1.94, P = 0.43). The ELAPE was associated with lower rate of intraoperative perforation (6.6% vs. 11.3%, OR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.39-0.64, P < 0.001) and local recurrence (8.8% vs. 20.5%, OR = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.21-0.41, P < 0.001) when compared with APE.

CONCLUSIONS

The ELAPE was associated with a reduction in the rate of intra-operative perforation and local recurrence, without any increase in the circumferential resection margin positivity and post-operative perineal wound complication rate when compared with APE in the surgical treatment of low rectal cancer.

Pelvic peritoneum closure reduces postoperative complications of laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection: 6-year experience in single center

BACKGROUND

To investigate feasibility of laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection with pelvic peritoneum closure (LAPR-PPC) for lower rectal cancer.

METHODS

LAPR-PPC has been used for lower rectal cancer in our institution since 2014. In this study, we retrospectively analyzed the data from 86 patients who underwent LAPR-PPC and compared with the data from 96 patients who underwent laparoscopic APR without PPC (LAPR) from January 2013 to December 2018.

RESULTS

The rate of perineal surgical site infection (SSI) (18.75% (18/96) vs. 5.81% (5/86), p < 0.01), delayed (> 4 weeks) perineal healing (12.50% (12/96) vs. 3.49% (3/86), p = 0.027), ileus (7.29% (7/96) vs 1.16% (1/86), p = 0.044), and postoperative perineal hernia (PPH, 5.21% (5/96) vs. 0% (0/86), p = 0.032) were significantly lower in LAPR-PPC group than LAPR group. The patients in LAPR-PPC group had shorter hospitalization time (21.32 ± 11.95 days vs. 13.93 ± 11.51 days, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

PPC procedure enabled the reduction in perineal wound complications, ileus, PPH, and consequently shortened hospitalization time. LAPR-PPC is beneficial for the patients with lower rectal cancer.

Laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal resection versus laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for lower rectal cancer: A retrospective comparative study from China

BACKGROUND

This study was performed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal resection (LELAPR) versus laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (LAPR) in patients with lower rectal cancer.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent LELAPR or LAPR in our unit from September 2009 to December 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. The patients' clinicopathological data and short- and long-term outcomes were compared and analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 111 patients included in this study, 58 (52%) patients underwent LAPR and 53 (48%) LELAPR. A negative circumferential resection margin was achieved in all the two groups of patients. The LELAPR group had a longer operation time (P = 0.049), more intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.037), shorter hospitalization after surgery (P = 0.002), fewer lymph nodes harvested (P = 0.001), fewer positive lymph nodes (P = 0.002), and a shorter maximum tumor diameter (P < 0.001) compared with the LAPR group. There were also lower rates of intraoperative perforation (P = 0.039) and death (P = 0.013) in the LELAPR group. However, there were no significant differences in the rates of local recurrence (P = 0.144), metastasis (P = 0.111), overall survival (P = 0.404), disease-free survival (P = 0.515), or progression-free survival (P = 0.210) between the two groups. There were no significant differences in postoperative complications including postoperative hernia (P = 0.918), urinary retention (P = 0.579), intestinal obstruction (P = 1.0), and perineal wound complications (P = 0.252).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with LAPR, the LELAPR approach significantly reduced the rate of intraoperative perforation and postoperative death without increasing postoperative complications. LELAPR was beneficial to patients with ulcerative, anterior and advanced lower rectal cancer.

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.

Single centre experience of bilateral gracilis flap perineal reconstruction following extra-levator abdominoperineal excision

AIM

A variety of tissue flaps have been described for the closure of perineal wounds following abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (APE) or exenteration for locally advanced/recurrent rectal cancer and salvage surgery for anal cancer. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the utility of the bilateral pedicled gracilis muscle flaps (BPGMFs) as a reconstruction option in these patients. This is of particular benefit when using a laparoscopic approach for the abdominal component of the operation, avoiding disruption of the abdominal wall and risk of herniation with other reconstruction options, e.g. vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flaps.

METHOD

This is a retrospective single centre case series of patients who underwent reconstruction of perineal defects using BPGMFs using a novel weave technique, from January 2008 to August 2017.

RESULTS

There were 25 patients (16 female), with a median follow-up of 19 months (3-102). The indications for BPGMFs were cancer resection (21) and perineal hernia (4). The median length of stay was 14 days (6-60). All-cause mortality was 36% within the follow-up period. A healed perineal wound was achieved in 72% of patients within 30 days (84% of patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy). The overall donor site complication rate was 20% (including infection, dehiscence, numbness, haematoma and seroma) and 28% for the perineal site (including infection, dehiscence and prolapse).

CONCLUSIONS

BPGMFs provide an important option for reconstruction of the perineum particularly with a minimally invasive approach or with two stomas.