Effect of technique on postoperative perineal wound infections in abdominoperineal resection

Subtotal colectomy in ulcerative colitis—long term considerations for the rectal stump

BACKGROUND

The initial operation of choice in many patients presenting as an emergency with ulcerative colitis is a subtotal colectomy with end ileostomy. A percentage of patients do not proceed to completion proctectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis.

AIM

To review the existing literature in relation to the significant long-term complic-ations associated with the rectal stump, to provide an overview of options for the surgical management of remnant rectum and anal canal and to form a consolidated guideline on endoscopic screening recommendations in this cohort.

METHODS

A systematic review was carried out in accordance with PRISMA guidelines for papers containing recommendations for endoscopy surveillance in rectal remnants in ulcerative colitis. A secondary narrative review was carried out exploring the medical and surgical management options for the retained rectum.

RESULTS

For rectal stump surveillance guidelines, 20% recommended an interval of 6 mo to a year, 50% recommended yearly surveillance 10% recommended 2 yearly surveillance and the remaining 30% recommended risk stratification of patients and different screening intervals based on this. All studies agreed surveillance should be carried out via endoscopy and biopsy. Increased vigilance is needed in endoscopy in these patients. Literature review revealed a number of options for surgical management of the remnant rectum.

CONCLUSION

The retained rectal stump needs to be surveyed endoscopically according to risk stratification. Great care must be taken to avoid rectal perforation and pelvic sepsis at time of endoscopy. If completion proctectomy is indicated the authors favour removal of the anal canal using an intersphincteric dissection technique.

Perineal Wound Complications After Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision for Low Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Reconstruction of the pelvic floor defect caused by extralevator abdominoperineal excision poses a challenge for the surgeon.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to analyze the long-term perineal wound complications in patients undergoing conventional primary closure versus biological mesh-assisted repair after extralevator abdominoperineal excision.

DESIGN

This was a single-institution retrospective observational study.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at a tertiary academic medical center.

PATIENTS

Patients with low advanced rectal cancer undergoing extralevator abdominoperineal excision from August 2008 to December 2016 (N = 228) were included.

INTERVENTIONS

All of the patients received extralevator abdominoperineal excision operation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was perineal wound complications after the operation.

RESULTS

Of the 228 patients who underwent extralevator abdominoperineal excision, 174 received biological mesh repair and 54 received primary closure. Preoperative radiotherapy was administered to 89 patients (51.1%) in the biological mesh group and 20 patients (37.0%) in the primary closure group. The biological mesh group had significantly lower rates of perineal wound infection (11.5% vs 22.2%; p = 0.047), perineal hernia (3.4% vs 13.0%; p = 0.022), wound dehiscence (0.6% vs 5.6%; p = 0.042), and total perineal wound complications (14.9% vs 35.2%; p = 0.001) compared with the primary closure group. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed preoperative radiotherapy (p < 0.001), conventional primary closure (p < 0.001), and intraoperative bowel perforation (p= 0.001) to be significantly associated with perineal procedure-related complications.

LIMITATIONS

This was a single-center retrospective study.

CONCLUSIONS

Although perineal wound repair with biological mesh prolongs the operative time of perineal portion, the perineal drainage retention time, and the length of hospital stay, it may reduce perineal procedure-related complications and improve wound healing. Preoperative radiotherapy and intraoperative bowel perforation appear to be independent predictors of perineal complications. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B42. COMPLICACIONES DE LA HERIDA PERINEAL DESPUÉS DE LA EXCISIÓN ABDOMINOPERINEAL EXTRA-ELEVADORA EN CASO DE CÁNCER DE RECTO BAJO: La reconstrucción del defecto en el suelo pélvico, resultado de una resección abdominoperineal extra-elevadora plantea un desafío para el cirujano.El analisis de las complicaciones de la herida perineal a largo plazo en pacientes sometidos a un cierre primario convencional versus una reparación asistida por malla biológica después de una resección abdominoperineal extra-elevadora.Estudio retrospectivo observacional en una sola institución.Investigación realizada en un centro médico académico terciario.Se incluyeron los pacientes con cáncer rectal bajo avanzado que se sometieron a una resección abdominoperineal extra-elevadora desde agosto de 2008 hasta diciembre de 2016 (n= 228).Todos aquellos pacientes que fueron sometidos a una resección abdominoperineal extra-elevadora.Todas las complicaciones de la herida perineal en el postoperatorio.De los 228 pacientes que se sometieron a una resección abdominoperineal extra-elevadora, 174 fueron reparados con una malla biológica y 54 se beneficiaron de un cierre primario. La radioterapia preoperatoria se administró a 89 (51,1%) pacientes en el grupo de malla biológica y 20 (37,0%) pacientes en el grupo de cierre primario. El grupo de malla biológica tuvo tasas significativamente más bajas de infección de la herida perineal (11.5% vs. 22.2%; p = 0.047), hernia perineal (3.4% vs. 13.0%; p = 0.022), dehiscencia de la herida (0.6% vs. 5.6%; p = 0,042) y complicaciones perineales de la herida (14,9% frente a 35,2%; p = 0,001) en comparación con el grupo de cierre primario. El análisis de regresión logística multivariable mostró que la radioterapia preoperatoria (p <0.001), el cierre primario convencional (p <0.001) y la perforación intestinal intra-operatoria (p = 0.001) se asociaron significativamente como complicaciones relacionadas con el procedimiento perineal.Estudio retrospectivo de centro único.Aunque la reparación de la herida perineal con malla biológica prolonga el tiempo perineal de la operación, la presencia y duración del drenaje perineal y la hospitalización pueden reducir las complicaciones relacionadas con el procedimiento perineal y mejorar la cicatrización de la herida. La radioterapia preoperatoria y la perforación intestinal intra-operatorias parecen ser predictores independientes de complicaciones perineales. Vea el Resumen del Video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B42.

Perioperative and oncological outcomes of abdominoperineal resection in the prone position vs the classic lithotomy position: A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

This study is a systematic review with meta-analysis designed to compare the perioperative and oncological outcomes of the abdominoperineal resection (APR) carried out in the prone jack-knife position (P-APR) vs the classic lithotomy position (C-APR).

METHODS

We conducted an electronic search through PubMed utilizing the PRISMA guidelines. We included all randomized and nonrandomized studies which allowed for comparative analysis between the two groups. Research that focused on and analyzed the extralevator abdominal excision were excluded. Pooled variables and number of events were analyzed using the random-effect model.

RESULTS

The final analysis included seven nonrandomized retrospective cohorts encompassing 1663 patients. P-APR was associated with decreased operative time (OT) (DM, -43.8 minutes; P < 0.01) and estimated blood loss (EBL) (DM, 86.9 mL; P < 0.01). There were no observed differences regarding perineal wound infections (PWI) (odds ratio [OR], 0.36; P = 0.18), intraoperative perforation of rectum (IOP) (OR, 0.98; P = 0.97), circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity (OR, 1.02; P = 0.98) or 5-year LR (OR, 1.00; P = 0.99).

CONCLUSION

The prone approach for APR is associated with decreased EBL and OT, although not with any change in the incidence of PWI or IOP. Moreover, surgical positioning per se does not appear to affect the CRM positivity rates or LR rate.

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.

Prolonged Operative Duration Increases Risk of Surgical Site Infections: A Systematic Review

Background: The incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) across surgical procedures, specialties, and conditions is reported to vary from 0.1% to 50%. Operative duration is often cited as an independent and potentially modifiable risk factor for SSI. The objective of this systematic review was to provide an in-depth understanding of the relation between operating time and SSI.

Patients and Methods: This review included 81 prospective and retrospective studies. Along with study design, likelihood of SSI, mean operative times, time thresholds, effect measures, confidence intervals, and p values were extracted. Three meta-analyses were conducted, whereby odds ratios were pooled by hourly operative time thresholds, increments of increasing operative time, and surgical specialty.

Results: Pooled analyses demonstrated that the association between extended operative time and SSI typically remained statistically significant, with close to twice the likelihood of SSI observed across various time thresholds. The likelihood of SSI increased with increasing time increments; for example, a 13%, 17%, and 37% increased likelihood for every 15 min, 30 min, and 60 min of surgery, respectively. On average, across various procedures, the mean operative time was approximately 30 min longer in patients with SSIs compared with those patients without.

Conclusions: Prolonged operative time can increase the risk of SSI. Given the importance of SSIs on patient outcomes and health care economics, hospitals should focus efforts to reduce operative time.

Pouch excision: indications and outcomes

AIM

Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal-pouch anal anastomosis is the procedure of choice for ulcerative colitis. Unfortunately, up to 10% of pouches will fail, requiring either reconstruction or excision. While several series have reported on the aetiology of pouch failure, no study to date has focused on the postoperative complications associated with pouch excision.

METHODS

Patients who had excision of ileoanal reservoir with ileostomy (CPT code 45136) were included. Data abstracted included preoperative, operative and postoperative variables. A Kaplan-Meier curve of pouch survival was performed.

RESULTS

In all, 147 patients met the inclusion criteria for the study. The median age of patients was 47 years (73 women), and 132 had a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis at the time of colectomy. The most common indications for pouch excision were sepsis (n = 46; 31%) and Crohn's disease (n = 37; 25%). 84 (57%) patients experienced short-term (< 30 days) postoperative complications, the most common of which was a surgical site infection (n = 32; 21%); 55 (37%) patients had long-term complications (> 30 days) postoperatively, the most common of which was a return to the operating room (n = 19; 13%) largely for perineal wounds. Thirty-day mortality was zero. 4.8%, 47.6%, 65.3% and 84.4% of patients had undergone pouch excision by 1, 5, 10 and 20 years from the time of pouch construction, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Pouch excision has a high rate of both short- and long-term postoperative complications. Patients should be appropriately counselled to set expectations accordingly. In view of these findings we suggest that this operation should ideally be performed at a high volume centre with the availability of a multidisciplinary surgical team.

Local Application of Gentamicin in the Prophylaxis of Perineal Wound Infection After Abdominoperineal Resection: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Use of topical antibiotics to improve perineal wound healing after abdominoperineal resection (APR) is controversial. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the impact of local application of gentamicin on perineal wound healing after APR.

METHODS

The electronic databases Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library were searched in January 2015. Perineal wound outcome was categorized as infectious complications, non-infectious complications, and primary perineal wound healing.

RESULTS

From a total of 582 articles, eight studies published between 1988 and 2012 were included: four randomized controlled trials (RCTs), three comparative cohort studies, and one cohort study without control group. Gentamicin was administered using sponges (n = 3), beads (n = 4), and by local injection (n = 1). There was substantial heterogeneity regarding underlying disease, definition of outcome parameters and timing of perineal wound evaluation among the included studies, which precluded meta-analysis with pooling. Regarding infectious complications, three of six evaluable studies demonstrated a positive effect of local application of gentamicin: one of four RCTs and both comparative cohort studies. Only two RCTs reported on non-infectious complications, showing no significant impact of gentamicin sponge. All three comparative cohort studies demonstrated a significantly higher percentage of primary perineal wound healing after local application of gentamicin beads, but only one out of three evaluable RCTs did show a positive effect of gentamicin sponges.

CONCLUSION

Currently available evidence does not support perineal gentamicin application after APR.

Short-term Outcomes of an Extralevator Abdominoperineal Resection in the Prone Position Compared With a Conventional Abdominoperineal Resection for Advanced Low Rectal Cancer: The Early Experience at a Single Institution

Purpose

This study compared the perioperative and pathologic outcomes between an extralevator abdominoperineal resection (APR) in the prone position and a conventional APR.

Methods

Between September 2011 and March 2014, an extralevator APR in the prone position was performed on 13 patients with rectal cancer and a conventional APR on 26 such patients. Patients' demographics and perioperative and pathologic outcomes were obtained from the colorectal cancer database and electronic medical charts.

Results

Age and preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level were significantly different between the conventional and the extralevator APR in the prone position (median age, 65 years vs. 55 years [P = 0.001]; median preoperative CEA level, 4.94 ng/mL vs. 1.81 ng/mL [P = 0.011]). For perioperative outcomes, 1 (3.8%) intraoperative bowel perforation occurred in the conventional APR group and 2 (15.3%) in the extralevator APR group. In the conventional and extralevator APR groups, 12 (46.2%) and 6 patients (46.2%) had postoperative complications, and 8 (66.7%) and 2 patients (33.4%) had major complications (Clavien-Dindo III/IV), respectively. The circumferential resection margin involvement rate was higher in the extralevator APR group compared with the conventional APR group (3 of 13 [23.1%] vs. 3 of 26 [11.5%]).

Conclusion

The extralevator APR in the prone position for patients with advanced low rectal cancer has no advantages in perioperative and pathologic outcomes over a conventional APR for such patients. However, through early experience with a new surgical technique, we identified various reasons for the lack of favorable outcomes and expect sufficient experience to produce better peri- or postoperative outcomes.

Vacuum-assisted closure therapy for infected perineal wounds after abdominoperineal resection. A retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Perineal wound complications are a main problem after abdominoperineal resection (APR). There is little evidence concerning perineal wound management. This study describes and evaluates the role of vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) therapy in wound management strategies of perineal wound infections after APR.

METHODS

Patients undergoing APR for malignant disease between January 2007 and January 2013 were identified retrospectively. Data regarding occurrence and management of perineal wound complications were collected. Perineal wound infections were classified into minor or major complications and time to wound healing was measured. Time to wound healing was compared between patients receiving routine care or with additional VAC therapy.

RESULTS

Of 171 included patients, 76 (44.4%) had minor and 36 (21.1%) major perineal wound infections. Management of major infected perineal wounds consisted of drainage (n = 16), debridement (n = 4), drainage combined with debridement (n = 4), VAC therapy alone (n = 5), or VAC therapy combined with other treatments (n = 7). Median duration of perineal wound healing in major infected wounds was 141 days (range 17-739). Median time to wound healing was not different in patients treated with (172 days, range 23-368) or without VAC therapy (131 days, range 17-739).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

In this study, VAC therapy did not shorten time to wound healing. However, prospective studies are required to investigate the role of VAC therapy in management of infected perineal wounds after APR. Up to then, wound management will remain to be based on clinical perception and 'gut-feeling'.

Abdominoperineal Resection, Pelvic Exenteration, and Additional Organ Resection Increase the Risk of Surgical Site Infection after Elective Colorectal Surgery: An American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Analysis

BACKGROUND

Determining predictors of surgical site infection (SSI) in a large cohort is important for the design of accurate SSI surveillance programs. We hypothesized that additional organ resection and pelvic exenterative procedures are associated independently with a higher risk of SSI.

METHODS

Patients in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program® (ACS NSQIP®; American College of Surgeons, Chicago, IL) database (2005-2012) were identified (n=112,282). Surgical site infection (superficial or deep SSI) at 30 d was the primary outcome. Using primary and secondary CPT® codes (American Medical Association, Chicago, IL) pelvic exenteration was defined and additional organ resection was defined as: bladder resection/repair, hysterectomy, partial vaginectomy, additional segmental colectomy, small bowel, gastric, or diaphragm resection. Univariable analysis of patient and procedure factors identified significant (p<0.05) predictors, which were modeled using stepwise logistic regression.

RESULTS

The rate of SSI was 9.2%. After adjusting for operative duration, predictors of SSI were body mass index (BMI) 25-29.9 (odds ratio [OR]: 1.3), BMI 30-34.9 (OR: 1.59), BMI 35-39.9 (OR: 2.11), BMI>40 (OR: 2.51), pulmonary comorbidities (OR: 1.22), smoking (OR: 1.24), bowel obstruction (OR: 1.40), wound classification 3 or 4 (OR: 1.18), and abdominoperineal resection (OR: 1.58). Laparoscopic or laparoscopically assisted procedures offered a protective effect against incision infection (OR: 0.55). Additional organ resection (OR: 1.08) was also associated independently with SSI, but the magnitude of the effect was decreased after accounting for operative duration. In the analysis that excludes operative duration, pelvic exenteration is associated with SSI (OR: 1.38), but incorporating operative duration into the model results in this variable becoming non-significant.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to other factors, obesity, surgery for bowel obstruction, abdominoperineal resection, and additional organ resection are independently associated with a higher risk of SSI. Surgical site infection risk in pelvic exenteration and multiple organ resection cases appears to be mediated by prolonged operative duration. In these established high-risk sub-groups of patients, aggressive interventions to prevent SSI should be implemented.

Better operative outcomes achieved with the prone jackknife vs. lithotomy position during abdominoperineal resection in patients with low rectal cancer

Background

Lithotomy (LT) and prone jackknife positions (PJ) are routinely used for abdominoperineal resection (APR). The present study compared the clinical, pathological, and oncological outcomes of PJ-APR vs. LT-APR in low rectal cancer patients in order to confirm which position will provide more benefits to patients undergoing APR.

Methods

This is a retrospective study of consecutive patients with low rectal cancer who underwent curative APR between January 2002 and December 2011. Patients were matched 1:2 (PJ-APR = 74 and LT-APR = 37 patients) based on gender and age. Perioperative data, postoperative outcomes, and survival were compared between the two approaches.

Results

Hospital stay was shorter with PJ-APR compared with LT-APR (P < 0.05). Compared with LT-APR, duration of anesthesia (234 ± 50.8 vs. 291 ± 69 min, P = 0.022) and surgery (183 ± 44.8 vs. 234 ± 60 min, P = 0.016) was shorter with PJ-APR, and estimated blood losses were smaller (549 ± 218 vs. 674 ± 350 mL, P < 0.001). Blood transfusions were required in 37.8% of LT-APR patients and in 8.1% of PJ-APR patients (P < 0.001). There was no difference in the distribution of N stages (P = 0.27). Median follow-up was 47.1 (13.6–129.7) months. Postoperative complications were reported by fewer patients after PJ-APR compared with LT-APR (14.9% vs. 32.4%, P = 0.030). There were no significant differences in overall survival, disease-free survival, local recurrence, and distant metastasis (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

The PJ position provided a better exposure for low rectal cancer and had a lower operative risk and complication rates than LT-APR. However, there was no difference in rectal cancer prognosis between the two approaches. PJ-APR might be a better choice for patients with low rectal cancer.

A prospective multicenter clinical study of extralevator abdominoperineal resection for locally advanced low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have shown that extralevator abdominoperineal resection has the potential for reduced circumferential resection margin involvement, intraoperative bowl perforation, and local recurrence rates; however, it has been suggested that extended resection may be associated with increased morbidity because of the formation of a larger perineal defect.

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to demonstrate the feasibility and complications of extralevator abdominoperineal resection for locally advanced low rectal cancer in China.

DESIGN

This was a prospective cohort study.

SETTING

The study was conducted at 7 university hospitals throughout China.

PATIENTS

A total of 102 patients underwent this procedure for primary locally advanced low rectal cancer between August 2008 and October 2011.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measures comprised circumferential resection margin involvement, intraoperative perforation, postoperative complications, and local recurrence.

RESULTS

The most common complications included sexual dysfunction (40.5%), perineal complications (23.5%), urinary retention (18.6%), and chronic perineal pain (13.7%). Chronic perineal pain was associated with coccygectomy (p < 0.001), and the pain gradually eased over time. Reconstruction of the pelvic floor with biological mesh was associated with a lower rate of perineal dehiscence (p = 0.006) and overall perineal wound complications (p = 0.02) in comparison with primary closure. A positive circumferential margin was demonstrated in 6 (5.9%) patients, and intraoperative perforations occurred in 4 (3.9%) patients. All circumferential margin involvements and intraoperative perforations were located anteriorly. The local recurrence was 4.9% at a median follow-up of 44 months (range, 18-68 months).

LIMITATIONS

This was a nonrandomized, uncontrolled study.

CONCLUSIONS

Extralevator abdominoperineal resection performed in the prone position for low rectal cancer is a relatively safe approach with acceptable circumferential resection margin involvement, intraoperative perforations, and local recurrences. Reconstruction of the pelvic floor with biological mesh might lower the rate of perineal wound complications (see Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/DCR/A161).