Predictors of wound dehiscence and its impact on mortality after abdominoperineal resection: data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program

Omentoplasty versus cecal mobilization after abdominoperineal resection: A propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite the minimally invasive approach and early rehabilitation, abdominal-perineal resection (APR) remains a procedure with high morbidity, notably due to postoperative trapped bowel ileus and perineal healing complications. Several surgical techniques have been described for filling the pelvic void to prevent abscess formation and ileus by trapped bowel loop.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study was to compare the post APR complications for cancer of two of these techniques, omentoplasty and cecal mobilization, in a single-center study from an expert colorectal surgery center.

PATIENTS

From 2012 to 2022, 84 patients were included, including 58 (69%) with omentoplasty and 26 (31%) with cecal mobilization. They all underwent APR at Bordeaux University Hospital Center.

SETTINGS

A propensity score was used to avoid confounding factors as far as possible. Patient and procedure characteristics were initially comparable.

RESULTS

The 30-day complication rate was significantly higher in the cecal mobilization group (53.8% vs. 5.2% p < 0.01), as was the rate of pelvic abscess (34.6% vs. 0% p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that, when feasible, omentoplasty should be considered the preferred method for pelvic reconstruction following APR.

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.

Transperineal pelvic drainage combined with lateral position to promote perineal wound healing after abdominoperineal resection: A prospective cohort trial

BACKGROUND

For the rectal cancer <5 cm from anal margin, extralevator abdominoperineal resection (eAPR) has been accepted widely by surgeons. However, the rate of perineal infection following up eAPR is approximately 70%. We did the study with the aim of evaluating the effect and safety of transperineal pelvic drainage combined with lateral position (TPDLP) on perineal wound in patients undergoing eAPR.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to N-TPDLP group (standard arm) or TPDLP group (intervention arm). In the standard arm, surgery was completed after abdominal drainage tube was placed in pelvic. Comparatively, an additional transperineal wound drainage tube was applied in the experimental arm. Postoperatively, patients of both 2 groups were informed not to sit to reduce perineal compression until the perineal wound healed. But lateral position was demanded in the intervention arm. The primary endpoint was the rate of uncomplicated perineal wound healing defined as a Southampton wound score of <2 at 30 days postoperatively. Patients were followed for 6 months.

RESULTS

In total, 60 patients were randomly assigned to standard arm (n = 31) and intervention arm (n = 29). The mean perineal wound healing time was 34.2 (standard deviation [SD] 10.9) days in TPDLP arm, which significantly differ from 56.4 (SD 34.1) in N-TPDLP arm (P = .001). At 30 days postoperatively, 3 (10%) of 29 patients undergoing TPDLP were classified into grade 4 according to Southampton wound score, however, 16 (52%) of 31 patients were classified into grade 4 in control arm, and significantly difference was observed between randomization groups (P = .001). What's more, perineal wound pain was assessed at 30 days postoperatively, and it is discovered that the pain degree of patients in control arm was significantly more severe than the interventive arm (P = .015).

CONCLUSION

In the present study, we found that TPDLP generated a favorable prognosis for perineal wounds with acceptable side-effects.

Delayed surgery after radio-chemotherapy for rectal adenocarcinoma is protective for anastomotic dehiscence: a single-center observational retrospective cohort study

Ideal time interval between end of neoadjuvant radio-chemotherapy (NRCT) and surgery for rectal cancer is debated. Effect that different time intervals have on postoperative complications with particular regard to anastomotic dehiscence (AD) was evaluated on 167 patients who underwent surgery after long-course NRCT. Three different time intervals were considered: (0-42; 43-56; > 57 days). A time interval > 57 days was significantly protective for AD (p = 0.04, Odds ratio = 0.35; 95% CI 0.1254-0.9585) without influence on early oncological outcomes. Optimal time interval after end of NRCT and surgery may help achieving the best pathological response with lowest postoperative morbidity.Trial registration number: Clinical Trial. Gov NCT04013347. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=NCT04013347&cntry=&state=&city=&dist= ).

Using negative pressure wound therapy to prevent surgical site infection

It is estimated that, at the very least, 5% of patients who undergo surgery develop a surgical site infection (SSI). There has been much interest in the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) as a prophylactic treatment to reduce the risk of SSI. Evidence suggests it can accelerate healing times, reduce both the length of hospital stay and the frequency of dressing changes, and improve patients' quality of life. The efficacy of traditional and portable NPWT systems is similar. However, the latter has an advantage in that it increases patient mobility and does not hinder individuals from carrying out activities of daily living. There are also economic data suggesting that portable NPWT devices are associated with long-term cost savings.

Predictors of short-term readmission after beyond total mesorectal excision for primary locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer

Unplanned readmissions heavily affect the cost of health care and are used as an indicator of performance. No clear data are available regarding beyond-total mesorectal excision (bTME) procedure. Aim of the study is to identify patient-related and surgery-related factors influencing the 30-day readmissions after bTME. Retrospective data were collected from 220 patients who underwent bTME procedures at single centre between 2006 and 2016. Patient-related and operative factors were assessed, including body mass index (BMI), age, gender, American Society of Anaesthesiologists' (ASA) score, preoperative stage, neo-adjuvant therapy, primary tumour vs recurrence, the extent of surgery. The readmission rate was 8.18%. No statistically significant association was found with BMI, ASA score, length of stay and stay in the intensive care unit, primary vs recurrent tumour or blood transfusions. Not quite statistically significant was the association with pelvic side wall dissection (OR 3.32, p = 0.054). Statistically significant factors included preoperative stage > IIIb (OR: 4.77, p = 0.002), neo-adjuvant therapy (OR: 0.13, p = 0.0006), age over 65 years (OR: 5.96, p = 0.0005), any re-intervention during the first admission (OR: 7.4, p = 0.0001), and any post-operative complication (OR: 9.01, p = 0.004). The readmission rate after beyond-TME procedure is influenced by patient-related factors as well as post-operative morbidity.

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.

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.