The use of a negative pressure wound management system in perineal wound closure after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for low rectal cancer.
Tech Coloproctol 2016;
20:627-31. [PMID:
27380256 DOI:
10.1007/s10151-016-1495-6]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2015] [Accepted: 05/04/2016] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Perineal wound healing is a significant challenge after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) due to a high rate of wound breakdown. Negative pressure therapy has proven benefits in open wounds, and recently a negative pressure system has been developed for use on closed wounds at high risk of breakdown, such as apronectomy and hysterectomy. The aim of the present study was to determine whether negative pressure therapy applied to closed perineal wounds after ELAPE improved wound healing and compare outcomes to the published literature and outcomes from a historical cohort of patients who had undergone 'standard' abdominoperineal resection (APR) and primary closure of the perineal wounds.
METHODS
Prospective data on consecutive patients having ELAPE in the period from November 2012 to April 2015 were collected. The pelvic floor defect was reconstructed with biologic mesh. The adipose tissue layer was closed with vicryl sutures, a suction drain was left in the deep layer, the subcuticular layer and skin were closed, and the negative pressure system was applied. Any wound breakdown within the first 30 days postoperatively was recorded.
RESULTS
Of the 32 consecutive ELAPE patients whose perineal wounds were closed within 30 days with the use of the negative pressure system, there was 1 patient with major perineal wound breakdown and 2 patients with a 1 cm superficial wound defect, which needed no further treatment. In the remaining 29 (90 %) patients, the perineal wounds healed fully without complications. Twenty-five patients underwent standard APR in 2010-2011 with primary closure of their perineal wounds. Ten out of 25(40 %) of patients who had undergone standard APR and primary closure of perineal wounds had major wound complications (p = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
Our results suggest that after ELAPE the application of a negative pressure system to the perineal wound closed with biologic mesh may reduce perineal wound complications and may reduce the need for major perineal reconstruction.
Collapse