Time to Chemotherapy After Abdominoperineal Resection: Comparison Between Primary Closure and Perineal Flap Reconstruction

Primary closure versus vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) flap closure of perineal wound following abdominoperineal resection-a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE/AIM

Perianal wound healing and/or complications are common following abdominoperineal resection (APR). Although primary closure is commonly undertaken, myocutaneous flap closure such as vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap (VRAM) is thought to improve wound healing process and outcome. A comprehensive meta-analysis was performed to compare outcomes of primary closure versus VRAM flap closure of perineal wound following APR.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials were comprehensively searched until the 8th of August 2023. Included studies underwent meta-analysis to compare outcomes of primary closure versus VRAM flap closure of perineal wound following APR. The primary outcome of interest was perineal wound complications, and the secondary outcomes were abdominal wound complications, dehiscence, wound healing time, length of hospital stay, and mortality.

RESULTS

Ten studies with 1141 patients were included. Overall, 853 patients underwent primary closure (74.8%) and 288 patients underwent VRAM (25.2%). Eight studies reported on perineal wound complications after APR: 38.2% (n = 263/688) in the primary closure group versus 32.8% (n = 80/244) in the VRAM group. Perineal complication rates were statistically significantly lower in the VRAM group versus primary closure ((M-H OR, 1.61; 95% CI 1.04-2.49; 

CONCLUSION

We highlight the advantage of VRAM flap closure over primary closure for perineal wounds following APR. However, tailoring operative strategy based on patient and disease factors remains important in optimising outcomes.

Collapse

Key Words

• Abdominoperineal resection
• Perineal complications
• Surgical oncology
• Vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap

Collapse

MESH Headings Collapse

Grants Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Hugo C Temperley Department of Surgery, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. Trinity St James's Cancer Institute, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Poorya Shokuhi Department of Surgery, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
Niall J O'Sullivan Department of Surgery, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
Benjamin Mac Curtain Department of Surgery, St John of God Subiaco Hospital, Perth, Australia
Caitlin Waters Department of Surgery, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Perth, Australia
Alannah Murray Department of Surgery, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
Christina E Buckley Department of Plastics, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
Maeve O'Neill Department of Surgery, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
Brian Mehigan Department of Surgery, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
Paul H McCormick Department of Surgery, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
Michael E Kelly Department of Surgery, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland Trinity St James's Cancer Institute, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
John O Larkin Department of Surgery, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland

Collapse

A comparison of surgical techniques for perineal wound closure following perineal excision: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To mitigate pelvic wound issues following perineal excision of rectal or anal cancer, a number of techniques have been suggested as an alternative to primary closure. These methods include the use of a biological/dual mesh, omentoplasty, muscle flap, and/or pelvic peritoneum closure. The aim of this network analysis was to compare all the available surgical techniques used in the attempt to mitigate issues associated with an empty pelvis.

METHODS

An electronic systematic search using MEDLINE databases (PubMed), EMBASE, and Web of Science was performed (Last date of research was March 15th, 2023). Studies comparing at least two of the aforementioned surgical techniques for perineal wound reconstruction during abdominoperineal resection, pelvic exenteration, or extra levator abdominoperineal excision were included. The incidence of primary healing, complication, and/or reintervention for perineal wound were evaluated. In addition, the overall incidence of perineal hernia was assessed.

RESULTS

Forty-five observational studies and five randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion reporting on 146,398 patients. All the surgical techniques had a comparable risk ratio (RR) in terms of primary outcomes. The pooled network analysis showed a lower RR for perineal wound infection when comparing primary closure (RR 0.53; Crl 0.33, 0.89) to muscle flap. The perineal wound dehiscence RR was lower when comparing both omentoplasty (RR 0.59; Crl 0.38, 0.95) and primary closure (RR 0.58; Crl 0.46, 0.77) to muscle flap.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical options for perineal wound closure have evolved significantly over the last few decades. There remains no clear consensus on the "best" option, and tailoring to the individual remains a critical factor.

Perineal wound complications after vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap and mesh closure following abdominoperineal surgery and pelvic exenteration of anal and rectal cancers: A meta-analysis

A meta-analysis research was implemented to appraise the perineal wound complications (PWCs) after vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) flap and mesh closure (MC) following abdominoperineal surgery (AS) and pelvic exenteration (PE) of anal and rectal cancers. Inclusive literature research till April 2023 was done and 2008 interconnected researches were revised. Of the 20 picked researches, enclosed 2972 AS and PE of anal and rectal cancers persons were in the utilized researchers' starting point, 1216 of them were utilizing VRAM flap, and 1756 were primary closure (PC). Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were utilized to appraise the consequence of VRAM flap in treating AS and PE of anal and rectal cancers by the dichotomous approach and a fixed or random model. VRAM flap had significantly lower PWCs (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42-0.98, p < 0.001), and major PWCs (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.32-0.80, p = 0.004) compared to PC in AS and PE of anal and rectal cancers persons. However, VRAM flap and PC had no significant difference in minor PWCs (OR, 1; 95% CI, 0.54-1.85, p = 1.00) in AS and PE of anal and rectal cancer persons. VRAM flap had significantly lower PWCs, and major PWCs, however, no significant difference was found in minor PWCs compared to PC in AS and PE of anal and rectal cancers persons. However, caution needs to be taken when interacting with its values since there was a low sample size of most of the chosen research found for the comparisons in the meta-analysis.

Biosynthetic Mesh Reconstruction after Abdominoperineal Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: Cross Relation of Surgical Healing and Oncological Outcomes: A Multicentric Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Local wound complications are among the most relevant sequelae after an abdominoperineal resection (APR) for low rectal cancer. One of the proposed techniques to improve the postoperative recovery and to accelerate the initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy is the mesh reinforcement of the perineal wound. The aim of the current study is to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes after APR performed with a biosynthetic mesh reconstruction versus the conventional procedure.

METHODS

From 2015 to 2020, in two tertiary centres, the surgical outcomes, the wound events (i.e., surgical site infections, wound dehiscence and the complete healing time) and the oncological outcomes (i.e., time length to start adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy, an over 8-week delay in chemotherapy and the recurrence rate) were retrospectively analysed in patients undergoing APR reinforced with biosynthetic mesh (Group A) and conventional APR (Group B). Results Sixty-one patients were treated with APR (25 in Group A and 36 in Group B). Patients in Group A presented lower time for: healing (16 versus 24 days, p = 0.015), inferior perineal wound dehiscence rates (one versus nine cases, p = 0.033), an earlier adjuvant therapy start (26 versus 70 days, p = 0.003) and a lower recurrence rate (16.6% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.152).

CONCLUSIONS

In our series, the use of a biosynthetic mesh for the neo-perineum reconstruction after a Miles' procedure has resulted in safe, reproducible results affected by limited complications, guarantying a rapid start of the adjuvant therapy with clear benefits in oncological outcomes. Further randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up are needed to validate these results.

Flap Reconstruction of Perineal Defects after Pelvic Exenteration: A Systematic Description of Four Choices of Surgical Reconstruction Methods

BACKGROUND

The treatment of locally advanced or recurrent anorectal cancer requires radical surgery such as extralevator abdominoperineal resection and pelvic exenteration. Larger defects require flap reconstruction. The authors evaluated outcomes of different perineal reconstruction techniques.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Studies reporting outcomes on perineal flap reconstruction in patients with anal or colorectal cancer were included. Data on patient characteristics, surgical details, perineal and donor-site complications, revision surgery, mortality, and quality of life were extracted. Articles were assessed using the Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

The authors included 58 mainly observational studies comprising 1988 patients. Seventy-three percent of patients had rectal cancer. The majority of 910 abdominoperineal resection patients underwent reconstruction with rectus abdominis flaps (91 percent). Dehiscence (15 to 32 percent) and wound infection (8 to 16 percent) were the most common complications. Partial flap necrosis occurred in 2 to 4 percent and flap loss occurred in 0 to 2 percent. Perineal herniation was seen in 6 percent after gluteal flap reconstruction and in 0 to 1 percent after other types of reconstruction. Donor-site complications were substantial but were reported inconsistently.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical outcome data on perineal reconstruction after exenterative surgery are mostly of very low quality. Perineal reconstruction after pelvic exenteration is complex and requires a patient-tailored approach. Primary defect size, reconstruction aims, donor-site availability, and long-term morbidity should be taken into account. This review describes the clinical outcomes of four flap reconstruction techniques. Shared clinical decision-making on perineal reconstruction should be based on these present comprehensive data.

Perineal Wound Closure Following Abdominoperineal Resection and Pelvic Exenteration for Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Simple Summary

Abdominoperineal resection (APR) and pelvic exenteration (PE) for the treatment of cancer (mainly anal and rectal cancers) require extensive pelvic resection with a high rate of postoperative complications. The objective of this work was to systematically review and meta-analyze the effects of vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap (VRAMf) and mesh closure on perineal morbidity following APR and PE. The studies were distributed as follows: Group A comparing primary closure (PC) and VRAMf, Group B comparing PC and mesh closure, Group C comparing PC and VRAMf in PE. The meta-analysis of Groups A and B showed PC to be associated with an increase in the rate of total and major perineal wound complications. PC was associated with a decrease in total and major perineal complications in Group C.

Abstract

Background. Abdominoperineal resection (APR) and pelvic exenteration (PE) for the treatment of cancer require extensive pelvic resection with a high rate of postoperative complications. The objective of this work was to systematically review and meta-analyze the effects of vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap (VRAMf) and mesh closure on perineal morbidity following APR and PE (mainly for anal and rectal cancers). Methods. We searched PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE for eligible studies as of the year 2000. After data extraction, a meta-analysis was performed to compare perineal wound morbidity. The studies were distributed as follows: Group A comparing primary closure (PC) and VRAMf, Group B comparing PC and mesh closure, and Group C comparing PC and VRAMf in PE. Results. Our systematic review yielded 18 eligible studies involving 2180 patients (1206 primary closures, 647 flap closures, 327 mesh closures). The meta-analysis of Groups A and B showed PC to be associated with an increase in the rate of total (Group A: OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43–0.71; p < 0.01/Group B: OR 0.54, CI 0.17–1.68; p = 0.18) and major perineal wound complications (Group A: OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.35–0.68; p < 0.001/Group B: OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.12–1.17; p < 0.01). PC was associated with a decrease in total (OR 2.46, 95% CI 1.39–4.35; p < 0.01) and major (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.90–3.08; p = 0.1) perineal complications in Group C. Conclusions. Our results confirm the contribution of the VRAMf in reducing major complications in APR. Similarly, biological prostheses offer an interesting alternative in pelvic reconstruction. For PE, an adapted reconstruction must be proposed with specialized expertise.

Primary vs myocutaneous flap closure of perineal defects following abdominoperineal resection for colorectal disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Perineal wound complications after abdominoperineal resection (APR) have become a major clinical challenge. Myocutaneous flap closure has been proposed in place of primary closure to improve wound healing. We conducted this comprehensive meta-analysis to evaluate the current scientific evidence of primary closure vs myocutaneous flap closure of perineal defects following APR for colorectal disease.

METHODS

We systematically searched the MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases to identify all relevant studies. After data extraction from the included studies, meta-analysis was performed to compare perioperative outcomes of primary closure and myocutaneous flap closure.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies with a total of 17 913 patients (16 346 primary closure vs 1567 myocutaneous flap closure) were included. We found that primary closure was significantly associated with higher total perineal wound complications (P = 0.007), major perineal wound complications (P < 0.001) and perineal wound infection (P = 0.001). On the other hand, myocutaneous flap closure takes more operation time (P < 0.001) and increases the risk of perineal wound dehiscence (P = 0.01), deep surgical site infection (P < 0.001), enterocutaneous fistulas (P = 0.03) and return to the operating room (P = 0.0005). There were no significant differences between the two groups for other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first systematic review with meta-analysis comparing primary closure with myocutaneous flap closure of perineal defects after APR for colorectal disease. Although taking more operation time and an increased risk of specific complications, the pooled results have validated the use of myocutaneous flaps for reducing total/major perineal wound complications. More investigations are needed to draw definitive conclusions on this dilemma.

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.

Perineal Wound Complications Following Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision: Experience of a Regional Cancer Center

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) results in a large perineal defect which needs reconstruction by a flap or biological mesh. The incidence of perineal wound complications is thought to be higher following an ELAPE compared to conventional abdominoperineal excision (APE). WE aimed to analyze the perineal wound complications following ELAPE in our institution. This was a retrospective analysis of all consecutive patients who underwent an APE (conventional and ELAPE) procedure in our institution between 2012 and 2015. We retrieved the demographic data, treatment data, and pathological data from the case records. Reconstruction of the perineal defect after a prone perineal dissection was performed using a local muscle flap. The incidence of perinealwound complications, hospital stay, and time to initiate adjuvant chemotherapy was compared between the two groups. A total of 71 patients underwent APE over a period of 41 months of which 21 patients underwent ELAPE. The perineal dissection during ELAPE was done in the prone position in 18 patients and in the supine position in 3 patients. Perineal wound complications were seen in 9 patients (42%) who underwent ELAPE compared to 17 patients (34%) who underwent conventional APE (p = 0.52). The mean duration of hospital stay was significantly longer in patients who underwent ELAPE when compared to those who underwent conventional APE (22.9 ± 3.6 days vs 14.6 ± 1.0 days, p = 0.03). The median interval between ELAPE and initiation of adjuvant chemo was 54 days (range 32-120 days) compared to 50 days (range 30-100 days) in patients undergoing conventional APE. A delay in initiating adjuvant chemotherapy of more than 12 weeks was seen in 4 patients (19%) following ELAPE. The incidence of perineal wound complications following ELAPE in this study was comparable to that reported in literature. Although the hospital stay following ELAPE was significantly longer than that following conventional APE in our institution, it did not unduly prolong initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy. Improving the perineal reconstruction techniques and selecting patients who will benefit from ELAPE may help to reduce the wound complications.