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

BACKGROUND

Perineal wound morbidity is common following abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (APE). There is no consensus on the optimum perineal reconstruction method after APE, and in particular 'extra-levator APE' (ELAPE).

METHODS

A systematic review of the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases was performed. This position statement formulated clinical questions and graded the evidence to make recommendations.

RESULTS

Perineal wound complications may be higher following ELAPE compared to 'conventional APE (cAPE)' however there is insufficient evidence to recommend cAPE over ELAPE with regards to the impact upon perineal wound healing. The majority of cAPE studies have used primary closure with varying complication rates reported. Where concerns regarding perineal wound healing exist, myocutaneous flap closure may be considered as an alternative method. There is minimal available evidence on perineal mesh reconstruction following cAPE. Primary closure, mesh use and myocutaneous flap reconstruction following ELAPE has been reported although variations in definitions and low-quality of available evidence limit comparison. There is insufficient evidence to recommend one particular method of perineal closure after ELAPE. Primary perineal closure is likely to have a higher risk of perineal herniation. Myocutaneous flaps and biological mesh have been effectively used in ELAPE closure. There is insufficient evidence to support one particular type of flap or mesh. Perineal wound complication rates are significantly increased when neo-adjuvant radiotherapy is delivered, regardless of surgical technique. There is no evidence that laparoscopy reduces APE perineal wound complications.

CONCLUSION

This position statement updates clinicians on current evidence around perineal closure after APE surgery.

The application of incisional negative pressure wound therapy for perineal wounds: A systematic review

Impaired perineal wound healing is a major source of morbidity after abdominoperineal resection. Incisional negative pressure wound therapy can improve healing, prevent infections, and decrease the frequency of dehiscence. Our objective was to summarise existing evidence on the use of incisional negative pressure wound therapy on perineal wounds after abdominoperineal resection and to determine the effect on perineal wound complications. Electronic databases were searched in January 2017. Studies describing the use of incisional negative pressure wound therapy on primarily closed perineal wounds after abdominoperineal resection were included. Of the 278 identified articles, 5 were retrieved for inclusion in the systematic review (n = 169 patients). A significant decrease in perineal wound complications when using incisional negative pressure wound therapy was demonstrated, with surgical site infection rates as low as 9% (vs 41% in control groups). The major limitation of this systematic review was a small number of retrieved studies with small patient populations, high heterogeneity, and methodological issues. This review suggests that incisional negative pressure wound therapy decreases perineal wound complications after abdominoperineal resection. Further prospective trials with larger patient populations would be needed to confirm this association and delineate which patients might benefit most from the intervention.