1
|
Sharabiany S, Blok RD, Lapid O, Hompes R, Bemelman WA, Alberts VP, Lamme B, Wijsman JH, Tuynman JB, Aalbers AGJ, Beets GL, Fabry HFJ, Cherepanin IM, Polat F, Burger JWA, Rutten HJT, Bosker RJI, Talsma K, Rothbarth J, Verhoef C, van de Ven AWH, van der Bilt JDW, de Graaf EJR, Doornebosch PG, Leijtens JWA, Heemskerk J, Singh B, Chaudhri S, Gerhards MF, Karsten TM, de Wilt JHW, Bremers AJA, Vuylsteke RJCLM, Heuff G, van Geloven AAW, Tanis PJ, Musters GD. Perineal wound closure using gluteal turnover flap or primary closure after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: study protocol of a randomised controlled multicentre trial (BIOPEX-2 study). BMC Surg 2020; 20:164. [PMID: 32703182 PMCID: PMC7376711 DOI: 10.1186/s12893-020-00823-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/24/2019] [Accepted: 07/13/2020] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer is associated with high morbidity of the perineal wound, and controversy exists about the optimal closure technique. Primary perineal wound closure is still the standard of care in the Netherlands. Biological mesh closure did not improve wound healing in our previous randomised controlled trial (BIOPEX-study). It is suggested, based on meta-analysis of cohort studies, that filling of the perineal defect with well-vascularised tissue improves perineal wound healing. A gluteal turnover flap seems to be a promising method for this purpose, and with the advantage of not having a donor site scar. The aim of this study is to investigate whether a gluteal turnover flap improves the uncomplicated perineal wound healing after APR for rectal cancer. Methods Patients with primary or recurrent rectal cancer who are planned for APR will be considered eligible in this multicentre randomised controlled trial. Exclusion criteria are total exenteration, sacral resection above S4/S5, intersphincteric APR, biological mesh closure of the pelvic floor, collagen disorders, and severe systemic diseases. A total of 160 patients will be randomised between gluteal turnover flap (experimental arm) and primary closure (control arm). The total follow-up duration is 12 months, and outcome assessors and patients will be blinded for type of perineal wound closure. The primary outcome is the percentage of uncomplicated perineal wound healing on day 30, defined as a Southampton wound score of less than two. Secondary outcomes include time to perineal wound closure, incidence of perineal hernia, the number, duration and nature of the complications, re-interventions, quality of life and urogenital function. Discussion The uncomplicated perineal wound healing rate is expected to increase from 65 to 85% by using the gluteal turnover flap. With proven effectiveness, a quick implementation of this relatively simple surgical technique is expected to take place. Trial registration The trial was retrospectively registered at Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04004650 on July 2, 2019.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah Sharabiany
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Robin D Blok
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,LEXOR, Centre for Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Oncode Institute, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Oren Lapid
- Department of Plastic Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Roel Hompes
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Wilhelmus A Bemelman
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Victor P Alberts
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Bas Lamme
- Department of Surgery, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Jan H Wijsman
- Department of Surgery, Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands
| | - Jurriaan B Tuynman
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Free University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Arend G J Aalbers
- Department of Surgery, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital-Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Geerard L Beets
- Department of Surgery, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital-Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hans F J Fabry
- Department of Surgery, Bravis Hospital, Roosendaal, The Netherlands
| | | | - Fatih Polat
- Department of Surgery, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | | | - Harm J T Rutten
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.,GROW School of Oncology and Developmental Biology, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | | | - Koen Talsma
- Department of Surgery, Deventer Hospital, Deventer, The Netherlands
| | - Joost Rothbarth
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Cees Verhoef
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | | | - Eelco J R de Graaf
- Department of Surgery, IJsselland Hospital, Capelle aan den Ijssel, The Netherlands
| | - Pascal G Doornebosch
- Department of Surgery, IJsselland Hospital, Capelle aan den Ijssel, The Netherlands
| | | | - Jeroen Heemskerk
- Department of Surgery, Laurentius Hospital, Roermond, The Netherlands
| | - Baljit Singh
- Department of Surgery, Leicester Hospital, Leicester, UK
| | | | | | - Tom M Karsten
- Department of Surgery, OLVG Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Johannes H W de Wilt
- Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Andre J A Bremers
- Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | | | - Gijsbert Heuff
- Department of Surgery, Spaarne Gasthuis, Haarlem, The Netherlands
| | | | - Pieter J Tanis
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Gijsbert D Musters
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Blok RD, Hagemans JAW, Burger JWA, Rothbarth J, van der Bilt JDW, Lapid O, Hompes R, Tanis PJ. Feasibility of a subcutaneous gluteal turnover flap without donor site scar for perineal closure after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer. Tech Coloproctol 2019; 23:751-9. [PMID: 31432332 DOI: 10.1007/s10151-019-02055-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/28/2018] [Accepted: 07/24/2019] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Abdominoperineal resection (APR) carries a high risk of perineal wound morbidity. Perineal wound closure using autologous tissue flaps has been shown to be advantageous, but there is no consensus as to the optimal method. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a novel gluteal turnover flap (GT-flap) without donor site scar for perineal closure after APR. METHODS Consecutive patients who underwent APR for primary or recurrent rectal cancer were included in a prospective non-randomised pilot study in two academic centres. Perineal reconstruction consisted of a unilateral subcutaneous GT-flap, followed by midline closure. Feasibility was defined as uncomplicated perineal wound healing at 30 days in at least five patients, and a maximum of two flap failures. RESULTS Out of 17 potentially eligible patients, 10 patients underwent APR with GT-flap-assisted perineal wound closure. Seven patients had pre-operative radiotherapy. Median-added theatre time was 38 min (range 35-44 min). Two patients developed a superficial perineal wound dehiscence, most likely because of the excessive width of the skin island. Two other patients developed purulent discharge and excessive serosanguinous discharge, respectively, resulting in four complicated wounds at 30 days. No flap failure occurred, and no radiological or surgical reinterventions were performed. Median length of hospital stay was 10 days (IQR 8-12 days). CONCLUSIONS The GT-flap for routine perineal wound closure after APR seems feasible with limited additional theatre time, but success seems to depend on correct planning of the width of the flap. The potential for reducing perineal morbidity should be evaluated in a randomised controlled trial.
Collapse
|