Real world dehiscence rates for patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection with or without myocutaneous flap closure in the national surgical quality improvement project

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.

Comparison of Perineal Closure Techniques after Abdominoperineal Resections for Carcinoma of the Anus

BACKGROUND

Perineal reconstruction following salvage APR's for squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA) are scant with conflicting results from large and single center studies. We analyzed these techniques taking into account sociodemographic and oncologic variables.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study from 2016-2019 using a targeted ACS/NSQIP database stratified into primary closure (PC), abdominal myocutaneous (AM), lower extremity (LE), and omental pedicled (OP) flaps. We analyzed major and wound complications through univariate and multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 766 patients were analyzed, 512 (67%) had PC, 196 (25%) AM, 36 (5%) OP and 22 (3%) LE. Rates of chemotherapy and radiation within 90 days were similar between the groups. Having 2 or more additional organs resected was more common for the AM group (AM 4.1%, PC 1.6%, OP 3.3%, LE 0%). Overall, major complication rate was 41% (n = 324). Primary closure had 35.0%, OP 47.2%, AM 52.6%, and LE 45.5%. Wound complication rate was highest in AM with 11.7%, followed by OP 8.3%, PC 5.9%, and LE 0%. The multivariate regression analysis demonstrated none of the closure techniques to be associated with increasing or decreasing the probability of having a major or wound complication. Morbidity probability was the sole predictor of major complication (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.04-1.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Myocutaneous and omental flaps are associated with comparable wound and major complications when taking into account the baseline, oncologic and perioperative variables that drive the clinical decision making when selecting a perineal reconstruction.

Outcomes of perineal wound closure techniques after abdominoperineal resections in rectal cancer: an NSQIP propensity score matched study

Perineal defects following abdominoperineal resections (APRs) for rectal cancer may require myocutaneous or omental flaps depending upon anatomic, clinical and oncologic variables. However, studies comparing their efficacy have shown contradictory results. We aim to compare postoperative complication rates of APR closure techniques in rectal cancer using propensity score-matching. The American College of Surgeons Proctectomy Targeted Data File was queried from 2016 to 2019. The study population was defined using CPT and ICD-10 codes for patients with rectal cancer undergoing APR, stratified by repair technique. Perioperative demographic and oncologic variables were controlled for by propensity-score matching. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed for wound and major complications (MCs). Of the 3291 patients included in the study, 85% underwent primary closure (PC), 8.3% rectus abdominis myocutaneous (RAM) flap, 4.9% pedicled omental flap with PC, and 1.9% lower extremity (LE) flap repair. Primary closure rates were significantly higher for patients with stage T1 and T2 tumors (p < 0.001). RAM and LE flaps were most used with multi-organ resections, 24% and 25%, respectively (p < 0.001). Similarly, cases with T4 tumors used these flaps more frequently, 30% and 40%, respectively (p < 0.001). After propensity score matching for comorbidities and oncologic variables, there was no significant difference in 30-day postoperative wound or MC rates between perineal closure techniques. The complication rates of the different closure techniques are comparable when tumor stage is considered. Therefore, tumor staging and concurrent procedures should guide clinical decision making regarding the appropriate use of each technique.

Tailored concept for the plastic closure of pelvic defects resulting from extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) or pelvic exenteration

PURPOSE

No standard exists for reconstruction after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) and pelvic exenteration. We propose a tailored concept with the use of bilateral gluteal V-Y advancement flaps in non-extended ELAPE and with vertical myocutaneous rectus abdominis muscle (VRAM) flaps in extended procedures. This retrospective study analyzes the feasibility of this concept.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrieved all consecutive patients after ELAPE or pelvic exenteration for rectal, anal, or vulva cancer with flap repair from a prospective database. Perineal wound complications were defined as the primary endpoint. Outcomes for the two different flap reconstructions were analyzed.

RESULTS

From 2005 to 2021, we identified 107 patients who met the study criteria. Four patients underwent exenteration with VRAM flap repair after previous V-Y flap fashioning. Therefore, we report on 75 V-Y and 36 VRAM flaps. The V-Y group contained more rectal carcinomas, and the VRAM group exhibited more patients with recurrent cancer, more multivisceral resections, and longer operation times. Perineal wound complications occurred in 21.3% in the V-Y group and in 36.1% in the VRAM group (p = 0.097). Adjusted odds ratio for perineal wound complication was not significantly different for the two flap types.

CONCLUSION

Concerning perineal wound complications, our concept yields favorable results for V-Y flap closure indicating that this less invasive approach is sufficient for non-extended ELAPE. Advantages are a shorter operation time, less donor site morbidity, and the option of a second repair. VRAM flaps were reserved for larger wounds after pelvic exenteration or vaginal repair.

Omental flaps in patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Following abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer, perineal wound complications are common. Omental flap creation may allow for decreased morbidity. The aim of this study was to assess wound complications in rectal cancer patients undergoing APR with and without the addition of an omental flap.

METHODS

The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Proctectomy targeted database from 2016 to 2017 was used to identify all patients undergoing APR for rectal cancer. The primary outcomes were wound complications such as superficial site infection, deep wound infection, organ space infection, and wound dehiscence.

RESULTS

There were 3063 patients identified. One hundred seventy-three (5.6%) patients underwent APR with an omental flap repair while 2890 (94.4%) patients underwent APR without an omental flap repair. Patients in both groups were similar with regard to age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesia class, and neoadjuvant cancer treatment (all p > 0.05). Patients who underwent an omental flap repair were significantly more likely to have a postoperative organ space infection (10.4% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.04). There was no significant difference in rates of superficial site infection, deep wound infection, wound dehiscence, or reoperation between the two patient groups. In multivariable analysis, omental flap creation was independently associated with organ space infection (OR 1.72, 95%CI 1.02-2.90, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest study to evaluate omental flap use in rectal cancer patients undergoing APR. Omental flaps are independently associated with organ space infection.

Scoping Review of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program in Plastic Surgery Research

Background

The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) is a robust, high-quality surgical outcomes database that measures risk-adjusted 30-day outcomes of surgical interventions. The purpose of this scoping review is to describe how the NSQIP is being used in plastic surgery research.

Methods

A comprehensive electronic literature search was completed in PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and CINAHL. Two reviewers independently reviewed articles to determine their relevance using predefined inclusion criteria. Articles were included if they utilized NSQIP data to conduct research in a domain of plastic surgery or analyzed surgical procedures completed by plastic surgeons. Extracted information included the domain of plastic surgery, country of origin, journal, and year of publication.

Results

A total of 106 articles met the inclusion criteria. The most common domain of plastic surgery was breast reconstruction representing 35% of the articles. Of the 106 articles, 95% were published within the last 5 years. The Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery journal published most of the (59%) NSQIP-related articles. All of the studies were retrospective. Of note, there were no articles on burns and only one study on trauma as the domain of plastic surgery.

Conclusion

This scoping review describes how NSQIP data are being used to analyze plastic surgery interventions and outcomes in order to guide quality improvement in 106 articles. It demonstrates the utility of NSQIP in the literature, however also identifies some limitations of the program as it applies to plastic surgery.

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.

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.

Frequency and timing of short-term complications following abdominoperineal resection

BACKGROUND

Abdominoperineal resection (APR) is primarily used for rectal cancer and is associated with a high rate of complications. Though the majority of APRs are performed as open procedures, laparoscopic APRs have become more popular. The differences in short-term complications between open and laparoscopic APR are poorly characterized.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database to determine the frequency and timing of onset of 30-d postoperative complications after APR and identify differences between open and laparoscopic APR.

RESULTS

A total of 7681 patients undergoing laparoscopic or open APR between 2011 and 2015 were identified. The total complication rate for APR was high (45.4%). APRs were commonly complicated by blood transfusion (20.1%), surgical site infection (19.3%), and readmission (12.3%). Laparoscopic APR was associated with a 14% lower total complication rate compared to open APR (36.0% versus 50.1%, P < 0.001). This was primarily driven by a decreased rate of transfusion (10.7% versus 24.9%, P < 0.001) and surgical site infection (15.5% versus 21.2%, P < 0.001). Laparoscopic APR had shorter length of stay and decreased reoperation rate but similar rates of readmission and death. Cardiopulmonary complications occurred earlier in the postoperative period after APR, whereas infectious complications occurred later.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term complications following APR are common and occur more frequently in patients who undergo open APR. This, along with factors such as risk of positive pathologic margins, surgeon skill set, and patient characteristics, should contribute to the decision-making process when planning rectal cancer surgery.