Is it worthwhile to perform closure of the pelvic peritoneum in laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal resection?

Incidence and risk factors for perineal hernia after robotic abdominoperineal resection: a single-center, retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Perineal hernia (PH) is a late complication of abdominoperineal resection (APR) that may compromise a patient's quality of life. The frequency and risk factors for PH after robotic APR adopting recent rectal cancer treatment strategies remain unclear.

METHODS

Patients who underwent robotic APR for rectal cancer between December 2011 and June 2022 were retrospectively examined. From July 2020, pelvic reinforcement procedures, such as robotic closure of the pelvic peritoneum and levator ani muscles, were performed as prophylactic procedures for PH whenever feasible. PH was diagnosed in patients with or without symptoms using computed tomography 1 year after surgery. We examined the frequency of PH, compared characteristics between patients with PH (PH+) and without PH (PH-), and identified risk factors for PH.

RESULTS

We evaluated 142 patients, including 53 PH+ (37.3%) and 89 PH- (62.6%). PH+ had a significantly higher rate of preoperative chemoradiotherapy (26.4% versus 10.1%, p = 0.017) and a significantly lower rate of undergoing pelvic reinforcement procedures (1.9% versus 14.0%, p = 0.017). PH+ had a lower rate of lateral lymph node dissection (47.2% versus 61.8%, p = 0.115) and a shorter operative time (340 min versus 394 min, p = 0.110). According to multivariate analysis, the independent risk factors for PH were preoperative chemoradiotherapy, not undergoing lateral lymph node dissection, and not undergoing a pelvic reinforcement procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

PH after robotic APR for rectal cancer is not a rare complication under the recent treatment strategies for rectal cancer, and performing prophylactic procedures for PH should be considered.

A short-term study of laparoscopic-dominant individualised levator ani resection in abdominoperineal resection: A retrospective investigation

OBJECTIVE

The objective is to investigate if laparoscopic-dominant abdominoperineal resection (LDAPR) with individualised levator ani resection inhibits local recurrence (LR) and prolongs survival as compared to laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (APR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Rectal cancer surgery cases were retrospectively identified from September 2014 to December 2019. LDAPR-treated group (55 patients) and the APR-treated group (71 patients) were included in the study. The operation time, circumferential resection margin (CRM), intraoperative tumor surgery (ITP), post-operative complications, the 2-year overall survival (OS) and LR were compared in the two groups.

RESULTS

The CRM and ITP were significantly reduced in the LDAPR as compared to the APR group (3.6% vs. 16.9%, t = 5.522, P = 0.019; 3.6% vs. 14.1%, t = 3.926, P = 0.048). In terms of post-operative complications, the incidence of urinary retention in LDAPR was significantly reduced than the APR group (10.9% vs. 25.4%, χ2 = 4.139, P = 0.041). Similarly, perineal pain at 6 months or 1 year after surgery was significantly down-regulated in LDAPR than in the APR group (72.7% vs. 88.7%, χ2 = 5.320, P = 0.021; 18.2% vs. 43.2%, χ2 = 8.288, P = 0.004). However, there was no statistically significant difference in the post-operative complications between the LDAPR and APR groups. Finally, LDAPR led to a significantly improved 2-year OS and a reduced LR compared to APR.

CONCLUSION

LDAPR reduces CMR, ITP and LR and simplified the perineum operation, subsequently protecting the pelvic autonomic nerves. Compared to the conventional APR, LDAPR is a promising procedure worth adopting for rectal cancer treatment.

Closure of pelvic peritoneum with bladder peritoneum flap reconstruction after laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision: A prospective stage II study

BACKGROUND

Extralevator abdominoperineal resection (ELAPE) has increased perineal wound complications due to the extended resection area. Closure of the pelvic peritoneum (CPP) may exclude the abdominal content from descending into the pelvic cavity and reduce the incidence of perineal complications after ELAPE. We have previously introduced bladder peritoneum flap reconstruction (BLAPER) as a novel method for patients in whom traditional CPP is not possible. The aim of the present study was to report the development and preliminary outcomes of BLAPER.

METHODS

This is a prospective single-arm study at the development and exploration phase and fulfills the IDEAL framework stage II. Ultralow rectal cancer patients with rigid pelvis who underwent ELAPE with BLAPER were enrolled. Primary outcomes were intraoperative complications and postoperative complications within 1 month after surgery.

RESULTS

Among 27 patients included, the overall success rate of BLAPER was 96.3% (26/27). Indocyanine green fluorescence imaging and antiadhesive barrier placement were introduced to improve the BLAPER technique. The incidence of major pelvic wound complications was 7.7%. No patient who underwent BLAPER has suffered small bowel obstruction (SBO), presence of small bowel in the retrourogenital space, or perineal hernia (PH).

CONCLUSIONS

BLAPER is safe and may prevent the small bowel from descending into the retrourogenital space and subsequently developing PH and SBO without increasing the intraoperative and postoperative complications. BLAPER may serve as an option when the primary suture of the pelvic peritoneum is not feasible.