How we do it: repair of large perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection

Postoperative perineal hernia repair: what is the evidence?

The present study determined the characteristics of perineal hernia treatment in the literature, and the incidence of postoperative recurrence was stratified according to repair techniques. A systematic search of the available literature on the treatment of postoperative perineal hernias was performed using a major database. The types of repair techniques and outcome were entered into an electronic database and a pooled analysis was performed. A total of 213 cases of postoperative perineal hernia repair were collected from 20 relevant articles in the literature after excluding case reports (n < 3). Synthetic mesh was the material used most frequently for perineal hernia repair (55.9%). The most frequently used approach in perineal hernia repair was the perineal approach (56.5%). The recurrence rate was highest with the use of biological mesh (40.4%) and the perineal approach (35.6%). The recurrence rate was lowest in the combined abdominal & perineal approach (0%), followed by the abdominal approach (8.8%) and the laparoscopic approach (11.8%). A number of different repair techniques have been described in the literature. The use of synthetic mesh via a combined abdominal-perineal approach or intraabdominal/laparoscopic approach was shown to be associated with a reduced postoperative recurrence rate.

A three layered repair of a large perineal hernia: case report and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

A symptomatic perineal hernia is an uncommon complication after abdominoperineal resection (APR). Repairs of such hernias can be achieved by usage of autologous flaps, synthetic mesh, or biologic mesh, which reduce bowel adhesions. Studies have shown that prophylactic repair of the pelvic floor with biologic mesh during APR, can reduce the incidence of perineal hernia.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 71-year-old woman, after extended APR (eAPR) with primary closure of pelvic floor with absorbable mesh, presented to our outpatient clinic with a symptomatic, extensive perineal hernia. The patient underwent repair of the perineal hernia using a synthetic mesh and a bilateral gluteal flap procedure. In post operative care, signs of surgical site infection and a fluid collection demonstrated in a CT-scan, compelled a surgical drainage. A clear fluid negative for bacterial growth was drained and antibiotic treatment was initiated. After drainage, surgical site showed signs of significant improvement and patient was eventually discharged.

CONCLUSION

The rise in reported incidence of perineal hernia after eAPR coupled with the scarcity of data regarding the preferable repair technique suggests that there is a significant need for further prospective comparative studies.

Mesh, flap or combined repair of perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection - A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

The aim of this systematic review was to analyse recurrence rates after different surgical techniques for perineal hernia repair.

METHOD

All original studies (n ≥ 2 patients) reporting recurrence rates after perineal hernia repair after abdominoperineal resection (APR) were included. The electronic database PubMed was last searched in December 2021. The primary outcome was recurrent perineal hernia. A weighted average of the logit proportions was determined by the use of the generic inverse variance method and random effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 19 studies involving 172 patients were included. The mean age of patients was 64 ± 5.6 years and the indication for APR was predominantly cancer (99%, 170/172). The pooled percentage of recurrent perineal hernia was 39% (95% CI: 27%-52%) after biological mesh closure, 29% (95% CI: 21%-39%) after synthetic mesh closure, 37% (95% CI: 14%-67%) after tissue flap reconstruction only and 9% (95% CI: 1%-45%) after tissue flap reconstruction combined with mesh.

CONCLUSION

Recurrence rates after mesh repair of perineal hernia are high, without a clear difference between biological and synthetic meshes. The addition of a tissue flap to mesh repair seemed to have a favourable outcome, which warrants further investigation.

Perineal hernia repair after abdominoperineal resection (APR) with the laparoscopic-peritoneal dual fixation technique

PURPOSE

Perineal hernia (PH) following abdominoperineal resection (APR) is a rare but challenging problem. Although different techniques have been described in literature, the recurrence rate is still remarkable, and there is no consensus regarding the optimal repair approach. In the present study, we reported our experience based on a consecutive series of ten cases.

METHODS

Ten symptomatic large perineal hernias were repaired exclusively with the same laparoscopic-perineal dual fixation technique. Key steps consist laparoscopic adhesiolysis, hernia contents reduction, open excess perineal hernia sac resection, and mesh placement and dual fixation. Frist, a coated mesh was fixed to the sacrum and pelvic sidewalls with the metallic tacks in the laparoscopic step, second, the mesh was fixed anteriorly to urogenital diaphragm and laterally to the sacrotuberous ligament with permanent sutures in the perineal step.

RESULTS

Ten symptomatic PHs were repaired by the same laparoscopic-perineal dual fixation technique, 6 males and 4 females, median age at the time of repair was 69.5 years (range 66-77 years), the BMI was 24 ± 1. Four concomitant procedures were performed, including bilateral inguinal hernia repair with the transabdominal preperitoneal repair (TAPP) in one case, and laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair in two patients. The average operative time was 171 ± 45 min; the postoperative average hospital stay was 14 ± 4 days. There was no perineal hernia recurrence during the follow-up period (the median follow-up was 42 months; range 1-63 months).

CONCLUSION

Perineal hernia after APR is a rare and challenging postoperative complication, although many different approaches have been described, the recurrence is still high and the best method cannot be drawn. The present laparoscopic-perineal dual fixation approach proved to be a reproducible, effective and durable technique, and gave excellent results during the medium-long-term follow-up.

Perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection – a systematic review

<b>Introduction:</b> Perineal hernia (PH), also termed pelvic floor hernia, is a protrusion of intraabdominal viscera into the perineum through a defect in the pelvic floor. </br></br> <b>Aim:</b> The study was conducted to evaluate the cases of perineal hernia resulting as a complication of abdominoperineal resection (APR) of rectal cancer. </br></br> <b> Material and methods:</b> 30 cases from 24 articles published in reputable peer reviewed journals were evaluated for eight variables including [I] patient age, [II] gender, [III] time since APR, [IV] clinical presentation, [V] approach to repair, [VI] type of repair, [VII] presence/absence of pelvic adhesions [VIII] complications. </br></br> <b>Results:</b> There was a total of 30 cases (18 males and 12 females) with a mean age of 71.5 years. The time of onset of symptoms ranged from 6 days to 12 years. Perineal lump with pain was the chief presenting feature followed by intestinal obstruction. Different approaches were adopted to repair by various methods. </br></br> <b>Conclusions:</b> Perineal hernia as a complication of abdominoperineal resection is reported increasingly nowadays, as the approach to management of rectal cancer has gradually got shifted from open to minimally invasive in recent years. There is a need to spread awareness about this condition, so that it is actively looked for, during the postoperative follow-up. Management is surgical repair; the approach and type of repair should be individualized.

Perineal eventration after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: anatomical, surgical and clinico-pathological landmarks

Perineal eventration (PE) is a rare complication after the lower rectal cancer resection surgery, affecting the quality of life of the patient. In 5.5 years of evolution, out of 620 patients with rectal cancer treated by curative surgery, 176 patients with lower ampullary rectal cancer treated by abdominoperineal resection (APR) with the closure of the defect by direct suture of the perineal floor were selected. Ten (5.6%) of them were diagnosed with PE. This paper shows the results of a retrospective study, which compares the clinico-pathological and therapeutic aspects of a subgroup of 166 patients (subgroup I) with APR without PE and a subgroup of 10 patients (subgroup II) with PE. Starting from the question of whether aspects can influence the evolution of PE, we aimed to investigate the similarities and differences between these two groups, from the histological, clinical and therapeutic points of view. Regarding the tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) staging, we encountered the following aspects: for the subgroup II with PE, pT3 predominated, stages N0 and N1 were equal (50%) and the absence of metastases (M0) was found in all cases; in subgroup I, pT3 and N0 also predominated, followed by N1 and N2, and for stage M, M0 is predominant, followed by M1. For the clinical profile of the PE group, the symptoms were characteristic, with the presence of the usual triggering factors [hysterectomy, radiochemotherapy and wide resection surgery – extralevatorial APR]. The therapeutic approach revealed various aspects, including plastic surgery procedures (direct closure, meshes, flaps) used in pelvic reconstruction. The accurate surgical technique applied in order to achieve oncological safety allowed for a longer survival, which favored the appearance of PE in addition to the other favoring factors. Our results underlined the clinico-pathological profile of the two subgroups, without being able to establish a correlation with the appearance and evolution of PE. However, the clinico-pathological risk factors for this condition are not yet fully defined. Therefore, reports based on the experience in the diagnosis and treatment of PE should bring valuable data, aiming to create the knowledge framework for prevention.

Perineal hernia mesh repair: a fixation with glue, sutures and tacks. How to do it

Introduction: Many different approaches for the repair of a perineal hernia (PH) after abdomino-perineal rectum amputation (APR) have been described throughout the years. Literature shows us that the use of a mesh had the best results with relatively low rates of recurrence compared to primary suture. Yet there is still no consensus on the best technique for fixation of the mesh in the perineal cavity. Methods: We want to introduce an addition to the surgical repair technique, using laparoscopic glue to ensure a solid fixation of the mesh. This is to prevent small bowel from sliding into the perineal area due to the high abdominal pressure when standing and to avoid the difficulties and risks of laparoscopical suturing in this area. Results: This use of glue for fixation of the mesh has been successful in the three cases described, with no recurrence after one-year follow-up. Conclusion: A recurrent PH can be prevented by a solid fixation of the mesh using the technique of a glued mesh repair. This technique shows to be easy, fast and without recurrence.

Transvaginal Small Bowel Evisceration following Abdominoperineal Resection

Abdominoperineal resection (APR) is one of the surgical techniques performed for the distal rectal cancer. The perineal herniation is one of the complications of APR surgery. In this report, we aim to demonstrate a rare case of small bowel evisceration and strangulation secondary to the transvaginal herniation evolved in the late stage after perineal hernia repair following laparoscopic APR.