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.

Closed Incisional Negative Pressure Therapy Reduces Perineal Wound Complications After Abdominoperineal Resection

BACKGROUND

Perineal wound complications after abdominoperineal resection continue to be a significant challenge. Complications, ranging from 14% up to 60%, prolong hospitalization, increase risk of readmission and reoperation, delay the start of adjuvant therapy, and place psychological stress on the patient and family.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of closed incision negative pressure therapy on perineal wound healing.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective study.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted in an academic community hospital.

PATIENTS

Patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection from 2012 to 2020 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Perineal wound complications within 30 and 180 days were the primary outcome measures.

RESULTS

A total of 45 patients were included in the study. Of these, 31 patients were managed with closed incision negative pressure therapy. The overall perineal wound complications were less frequent in the closed incision negative pressure therapy group (10/31; 32.2%) compared to the control group (10/14; 71.4%; = 5.99 [ p = 0.01]). In the closed incision negative pressure therapy group, 2 patients (20%) did not heal within 180 days and no patient required reoperation or readmission. In the control group, 4 patients (44%) had not healed at 180 days and 1 patient required flap reconstruction. When the effect of other variables was controlled, closed incision negative pressure therapy resulted in an 85% decrease in the odds of wound complications (adjusted OR 0.15 [95% CI, 0.03-0.60]; p = 0.01).

LIMITATIONS

The nonrandomized nature and use of historical controls in this study are its limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

The ease of application and the overall reduction in the incidence and severity of complications may offer an option for perineal wound management and possibly obviate the need for more expensive therapies. Further prospective controlled trials are required to effectively study its efficacy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B895 .

LA TERAPIA POR PRESIN NEGATIVA INCISIONAL CERRADA, REDUCE LAS COMPLICACIONES DE LA HERIDA PERINEAL DESPUS DE LA RESECCIN ABDOMINOPERINEAL

ANTECEDENTES:Las complicaciones de la herida perineal, después de la resección abdominoperineal, continúan siendo un desafío importante. Las complicaciones, que van desde el 14% hasta el 60%, prolongan la hospitalización, aumentan el riesgo de reingreso y reintervención, retrasan el inicio de la terapia adyuvante y generan estrés psicológico en el paciente y su familia.OBJETIVO:Evaluar el impacto de la terapia de presión negativa con incisión cerrada en la cicatrización de heridas perineales.DISEÑO:Estudio retrospectivo.ENTORNO CLINICO:Hospital comunitario académico.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes sometidos a resección abdominoperineal entre 2012 y 2020.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:Las complicaciones de la herida perineal dentro de los 30 y 180 días fueron las principales medidas de valoración.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron en el estudio a un total de 45 pacientes. De estos, 31 pacientes fueron tratados con terapia de presión negativa con incisión cerrada. Las complicaciones generales de la herida perineal fueron menos frecuentes en el grupo de terapia de presión negativa con incisión cerrada (10/31, 32,2%) en comparación con el grupo de control (10/14, 71,4%) (X_1 ^ 2 = 5,99 [ p = 0,01]). En el grupo de terapia de presión negativa con incisión cerrada, dos pacientes (20%) no cicatrizaron en 180 días y ningún paciente requirió reintervención o readmisión. En el grupo de control, cuatro pacientes (44%) no habían cicatrizado a los 180 días y un paciente requirió reconstrucción con colgajo. Cuando se controló el efecto de otras variables, la terapia de presión negativa con incisión cerrada resultó con una disminución del 85% en las probabilidades de complicaciones de la herida (OR ajustado, 0.15 [IC 95%, 0,03-0,60]; p = 0,01).LIMITACIONES:La naturaleza no aleatoria y el uso de controles históricos en este estudio, son limitaciones.CONCLUSIÓNES:La facilidad de aplicación, reducción general de la incidencia y gravedad de las complicaciones, pueden ofrecer una opción para el manejo de las heridas perineales y posiblemente obviar la necesidad de tratamientos más costosos. Se necesitan más ensayos controlados prospectivos para efectivamente estudiar la eficacia. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B895 . (Traducción-Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy ).

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the short-term outcome

AIM

The superiority of extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) over conventional abdominoperineal excision (APE) remains controversial, despite the publication of many studies on this issue. The aim of this meta-analysis was to provide a clear, evidence-based comparison of the two procedures.

METHOD

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted through a comprehensive search of the PubMed, EMBASE/Medline and Cochrane Central Library databases for all studies comparing ELAPE with conventional APE for low rectal cancer. Pooled data on circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity, intra-operative bowel perforation, perineal wound complications and local recurrence were analysed.

RESULTS

Seven studies, involving a total of 2672 patients, were included. Analysis of the pooled data did not reveal a significant difference between the two operations regarding CRM positivity [risk ratio (RR) = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.40-1.57; P = 0.50, I(2)  = 86%] and perineal wound complications (RR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.71-1.16; P = 0.44, I(2)  = 49%), and showed a borderline reduced risk of intra-operative bowel perforation for ELAPE, but still did not reveal a significant difference between the two groups (RR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.37-1.00; P = 0.05, I(2)  = 58%).

CONCLUSION

The current evidence does not indicate a statistically significant superiority of ELAPE over conventional APE in terms of CRM positivity and intra-operative bowel perforation.