Further insights into the treatment of perineal hernia based on a the experience of a single tertiary centre

Congenital perineal hernia: a systematic review of case reports

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to systematically review the literature to evaluate the diagnostic methods, associated defects, treatment approaches, and outcomes of congenital perineal hernia.

METHODS & RESULTS

We searched PubMed and Google Scholar from inception until January 7, 2024, to find relevant articles on congenital perineal hernia. A total of 87 articles were obtained which were screened based on eligibility criteria yielding a total of 12 documented cases that were summarized in a table.

CASE DESCRIPTION

We also present two cases of congenital perineal hernia in two siblings. A 28-day-old full-term infant presented with respiratory distress and pneumonia. Examination revealed a reducible swelling in the buttock. Imaging confirmed congenital diaphragmatic and perineal hernia. Emergency surgical correction of the diaphragmatic hernia was performed, but the infant's condition worsened, leading to death 9 days after surgery due to sepsis and respiratory arrest. A 2.5-month-old infant presented with protrusion in the buttocks, irritability, and breathing difficulties. Examination revealed a reducible congenital perineal hernia. Imaging revealed herniation of the intestinal loops through a pelvic muscle defect. Although surgery was offered, the parents chose conservative management, and the patient remained asymptomatic at 4 months of age.

CONCLUSIONS

It is important to consider the possibility of congenital perineal hernia when encountering a reducible swelling in the buttock area. Our findings emphasize the need for individualized care based on case-specific attributes and highlight the complexity of congenital perineal hernias.

Anterior perineal hernia - A case report of a rare complication after pelvic exenteration

INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE

Perineal hernias are protrusions of intra-abdominal contents resulting from weakness of the pelvic floor muscles. They are an uncommon complication after ultraradical pelvic surgeries, with no established gold standard for surgical treatment. This case describes a rare anterior perineal hernia that developed after radical surgery for bladder carcinoma.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 77-year-old Caucasian woman presented with a painful 10 cm bulge in the perineal region. The hernial sac involved the entire left labia majora and developed 4 years after radical surgery for bladder carcinoma. She had been misdiagnosed twice in the past with vaginal prolapse, leading to two unsuccessful vaginoplasty procedures due to recurrence. She underwent hernia repair with perineal approach and polypropylene mesh placement. The postoperative period was uncomplicated, and the patient was discharged after five days, with histology showing no malignancy.

CLINICAL DISCUSSION

Perineal hernias are protrusions of intra- or extraperitoneal contents into the perineum due to a defect in the pelvic musculature. Various surgical modalities exist for perineal hernia repair, which adhere to the fundamental principles of hernia surgery: sac mobilization, precise incision, sac debridement and excision, and defect repair. Here, we successfully applied the perineal approach in a complicated case of a misdiagnosed perineal hernia after radical surgery.

CONCLUSION

The perineal approach for hernia repair, involving an implantation of a polypropylene mesh and tissue flap was successfully applied, confirming its main place in the surgical treatment of perineal hernias. During the two-year follow-up no postoperative complications or recurrence hernia were registered.

Laparoscopic treatment of perineal hernia after previous abdominal perineal rectal resection due to cancer. Case report

The aim of this study is to present a case of laparoscopic treatment of perineal hernia in a patient after abdominoperineal resection od the rectum. We present the case of a 63-year-old woman who was operated on laparoscopically with a mesh sewn in at the level of the sacrum, iliac vessels and pubic symphysis. And covered with a peritoneal flap above the urinary bladder. A 63-year-old woman 4 years earlier underwent neoadjuvant treatment and laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection. The postoperative period was uncomplicated. Histological examination after operation was: adenocarcinoma ypT3N1aM0. The perineal wound healed without complication. 2 years after the above-mentioned surgery, the patient began to experience abdominal pain, especially when sitting down, and symptoms related to "sitting on a pillow". Physical examination revealed a palpable bulge in the perineal wound. The tomographic examination revealed intestinal loops in the perineum and the presence of fatty tissue without any signs of cancer recurrence. 10 cm in diameter mash was sewn at the level of the sacrum, iliac vessels and pubic symphysis. The abdominal symptoms disappeared completely, the so-called perineum cushion was entirely reduced. Laparoscopic treatment of perineal hernia may be a beneficial method for patients, but a demanding method for surgeons mainly due to the proximity of the iliac vessels.

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

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

Postoperative perineal hernia repair: what is the evidence?

The present study determined the characteristics of perineal hernia treatment in the literature, and the incidence of postoperative recurrence was stratified according to repair techniques. A systematic search of the available literature on the treatment of postoperative perineal hernias was performed using a major database. The types of repair techniques and outcome were entered into an electronic database and a pooled analysis was performed. A total of 213 cases of postoperative perineal hernia repair were collected from 20 relevant articles in the literature after excluding case reports (n < 3). Synthetic mesh was the material used most frequently for perineal hernia repair (55.9%). The most frequently used approach in perineal hernia repair was the perineal approach (56.5%). The recurrence rate was highest with the use of biological mesh (40.4%) and the perineal approach (35.6%). The recurrence rate was lowest in the combined abdominal & perineal approach (0%), followed by the abdominal approach (8.8%) and the laparoscopic approach (11.8%). A number of different repair techniques have been described in the literature. The use of synthetic mesh via a combined abdominal-perineal approach or intraabdominal/laparoscopic approach was shown to be associated with a reduced postoperative recurrence rate.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Mesh, flap or combined repair of perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection - A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

The aim of this systematic review was to analyse recurrence rates after different surgical techniques for perineal hernia repair.

METHOD

All original studies (n ≥ 2 patients) reporting recurrence rates after perineal hernia repair after abdominoperineal resection (APR) were included. The electronic database PubMed was last searched in December 2021. The primary outcome was recurrent perineal hernia. A weighted average of the logit proportions was determined by the use of the generic inverse variance method and random effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 19 studies involving 172 patients were included. The mean age of patients was 64 ± 5.6 years and the indication for APR was predominantly cancer (99%, 170/172). The pooled percentage of recurrent perineal hernia was 39% (95% CI: 27%-52%) after biological mesh closure, 29% (95% CI: 21%-39%) after synthetic mesh closure, 37% (95% CI: 14%-67%) after tissue flap reconstruction only and 9% (95% CI: 1%-45%) after tissue flap reconstruction combined with mesh.

CONCLUSION

Recurrence rates after mesh repair of perineal hernia are high, without a clear difference between biological and synthetic meshes. The addition of a tissue flap to mesh repair seemed to have a favourable outcome, which warrants further investigation.

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.

Robotic Repair of a Symptomatic Perineal Hernia With Self-Fixating Synthetic Mesh

Primary acquired perineal hernias are rare defects through the pelvic floor diaphragm. The optimal surgical technique for repair remains unknown, and recurrence rates approach 50%. We present a 65-year-old female without previous obstetric or pelvic surgical history who was found to have herniated sigmoid colon through a 2×2 cm levator ani defect. The patient underwent robotic transabdominal hernia repair with a synthetic self-fixating underlay mesh. The peritoneum was primarily closed and the patient was discharged the same day. There is no sign of recurrence to date. Our minimally invasive approach with extraperitoneal mesh placement provided us with several advantages: ambulatory surgery; excellent visualization of the defect; easier suturing in the deep pelvis compared to traditional laparoscopy; and mesh reinforcement while minimizing the risks of erosion, migration, adhesion, and fistula formation.

Perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection – a systematic review

<b>Introduction:</b> Perineal hernia (PH), also termed pelvic floor hernia, is a protrusion of intraabdominal viscera into the perineum through a defect in the pelvic floor. </br></br> <b>Aim:</b> The study was conducted to evaluate the cases of perineal hernia resulting as a complication of abdominoperineal resection (APR) of rectal cancer. </br></br> <b> Material and methods:</b> 30 cases from 24 articles published in reputable peer reviewed journals were evaluated for eight variables including [I] patient age, [II] gender, [III] time since APR, [IV] clinical presentation, [V] approach to repair, [VI] type of repair, [VII] presence/absence of pelvic adhesions [VIII] complications. </br></br> <b>Results:</b> There was a total of 30 cases (18 males and 12 females) with a mean age of 71.5 years. The time of onset of symptoms ranged from 6 days to 12 years. Perineal lump with pain was the chief presenting feature followed by intestinal obstruction. Different approaches were adopted to repair by various methods. </br></br> <b>Conclusions:</b> Perineal hernia as a complication of abdominoperineal resection is reported increasingly nowadays, as the approach to management of rectal cancer has gradually got shifted from open to minimally invasive in recent years. There is a need to spread awareness about this condition, so that it is actively looked for, during the postoperative follow-up. Management is surgical repair; the approach and type of repair should be individualized.

Repair of a perineal hernia with a bladder patch after abdominoperineal resection: A case report and literature review

Perineal hernia is the protrusion of the intra-abdominal viscera through the pelvic floor. It rarely occurs after abdominoperineal resection but has increasingly occurred after surgical treatment for rectal cancer. A patient was diagnosed as having perineal hernia 10 days after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection with preoperative radiotherapy and chemotherapy. He presented with epigastric discomfort and perineal wound dehiscence. Perineal hernia was confirmed by computed tomography scan and treated with a semi-emergency surgery. The surgical field was contaminated because of the perineal wound dehiscence. The levator muscle at the pelvic floor was not sufficient, so we used a bladder patch to cover the pelvic inlet. The surgery was performed without any adverse events. To our best knowledge, this is the first case report to present the usefulness of a bladder patch for the treatment of a perineal hernia using a laparoscopic transabdominal approach in emergency situations.

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.

Perineal hernia repair after abdominoperineal rectal excision with prosthetic mesh-a single surgeon experience

AIM

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer is associated with an increased incidence of perineal hernia. The purpose of this study was to determine clinical outcome following perineal hernia repair with prosthetic mesh by a perineal open approach.

METHODS

We present a case series of 10 patients who underwent 12 repairs of their hernia using a prosthetic mesh placed by a perineal open technique. Patients were identified from a prospectively maintained database and their case records were retrieved along with their imaging and analysed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Perineal hernia incidence in our series is 10%. The median age was 73 ± 5.9 years. No gender predilection was found. The median time interval between extralevator abdominoperineal excision and surgical repair of perineal hernia was 25.3 months. The surgical approach was perineal with the use of a double layer prosthetic mesh. The recurrence ratio was 30% (n = 3). Overall morbidity was also 30% with no major complications (Clavien-Dindo I-II). Recurrence following primary repair was diagnosed in a median time interval of 28.3 ± 16.57 months. Two patients had repeat surgery to treat their recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Our small series supports the use of a prosthetic mesh repair of perineal hernias through a perineal approach. It is safe and effective with complication rates similar to those previously reported.

Laparoscopic perineal hernia repair following pelvic exenteration: a case report

Background

Acquired perineal hernia is a rare complication following extensive pelvic surgery. Radiotherapy is also a predisposing factor. Perineal hernia can cause chronic perineal pain, bowel obstruction, urinary disorders and a cosmetically disfiguring defect. The treatment of perineal hernia is surgical, usually consisting of mesh repair via an abdominal or perineal approach.

Case presentation

We present a case report and a surgical video of a 42-year-old woman with history of a squamous cell carcinoma. This patient had 3 recurrences since the diagnosis and a symptomatic perineal hernia. Complete regression of the recurrent malignancy allowed us to treat the perineal hernia. We performed laparoscopic repair with prosthetic mesh in this patient who had undergone multiple surgeries and radiotherapy, while preserving the omental flap that was used to reconstruct the posterior part of the vagina.

Conclusion

There is no consensus concerning the preferred surgical approach, perineal or laparoscopic, as no study has demonstrated the superiority of either of these approaches. Laparoscopic repair for an acquired perineal hernia is safe and feasible. However, further studies including randomized trials are required to precisely evaluate the best surgical approach and type of mesh.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12893-021-01237-9.

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.