Case series of in situ pelvic floor reconstruction combining levator ani suture and negative pressure wound therapy for abdominoperineal resection

Surgical Repair of Postoperative Perineal Hernia: A Case for the Perineal Approach

BACKGROUND

Perineal hernia is a well-known, rare complication following abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer. Due to its rarity, the literature on its surgical repair is comprised of case reports and small case series, and not one surgical approach has been established as superior.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to identify the repair methods used at our institution and their outcomes. We hypothesized that a perineal approach would have a similar recurrence rate to a transabdominal repair with shorter hospital length of stay.

DESIGN

This study was a retrospective case series.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted in a large, single institution setting.

PATIENTS

Patients who underwent surgical repair for perineal hernia from January 2009 to December 2019 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes were perineal hernia recurrence, surgical approach to repair, and length of stay.

RESULTS

We identified 36 patients who underwent surgical repair of perineal hernia at our institution. Twenty patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy. Most patients (29) had previously undergone abdominoperineal resection; 5 were robotic, 15 were laparoscopic, 1 was robotic converted to open, and 8 were open. Patients were repaired through a perineal approach (22) or transabdominally (14). The median length of stay was 4 days (1-12) after a perineal approach and 8 days (3-18) after a transabdominal approach. At a median follow-up of 12.7 months (1-72), there were 4 recurrences after perineal repair and 3 recurrences after transabdominal repair.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its small sample size (36), the retrospective and nonrandomized nature of the case series, and a lack of routine postoperative imaging. A median follow-up length of 12.7 months may not be adequate to detect all recurrences.

CONCLUSIONS

This case series supports the perineal approach for surgical repair; it should be the first approach considered, as it is less invasive and may be associated with shorter length of stay compared to an open transabdominal approach. Male gender and neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be possible risk factors for the development of perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B856.

REPARACIN QUIRRGICA DE HERNIA PERINEAL POSOPERATORIA UN CASO PARA EL ABORDAJE PERINEAL

ANTECEDENTES:La hernia perineal es una complicación rara y bien conocida después de la resección abdominoperineal por cáncer de recto. Debido a su rareza, la literatura sobre su reparación quirúrgica se compone de informes de casos y pequeñas series de casos, y ningún abordaje quirúrgico se ha establecido como superior.OBJETIVO:El presente estudio tuvo como objetivo identificar los métodos de reparación utilizados en nuestra institución y sus resultados. Presumimos que un abordaje perineal tendría una tasa de recurrencia similar a una reparación transabdominal, con una estancia hospitalaria más corta.DISEÑO:Ésta es una serie de casos retrospectiva.AJUSTES:El escenario fue una gran institución única.PACIENTES:Los pacientes que se sometieron a reparación quirúrgica por hernia perineal desde enero del 2009 hasta diciembre del 2019 se incluyeron en la revisión.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los resultados primarios fueron la recurrencia de la hernia perineal, el abordaje quirúrgico para la reparación y la duración de la estadía.RESULTADOS:Identificamos 36 pacientes que fueron sometidos a reparación quirúrgica de hernia perineal en nuestra institución. La mayoría de los pacientes recibieron quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante (n = 20). La mayoría de los pacientes (n = 29) se habrían sometido previamente a una resección abdominoperineal (n = 5 robótica, n = 15 laparoscópica, n = 1 robótica convertida a abierta, n = 8 abierta). Los pacientes fueron reparados mediante un abordaje perineal (n = 22) o transabdominal (n = 14). La mediana de la estancia hospitalaria fue de 4 días (rango, 1-12) después de un abordaje perineal y de 8 días (rango 3-18) después de un abordaje transabdominal. En una mediana de seguimiento de 12,7 meses (rango, 1-72) hubo 4 recurrencias después de la reparación perineal y 3 recurrencias después de la transabdominal.LIMITACIONES:El tamaño de la muestra pequeño (n = 36), la naturaleza retrospectiva y no aleatorizada de la serie de casos, la falta de imágenes posoperatorias de rutina, la mediana de seguimiento de 12,7 meses puede no ser adecuada para detectar todas las recurrencias.CONCLUSIONES:Esta serie de casos apoya el abordaje perineal para la reparación quirúrgica; debe ser el primer abordaje considerado, ya que es menos invasivo y puede estar asociado con una estadía más corta en comparación con el abordaje transabdominal abierto. El sexo masculino y la quimioterapia neoadyuvante podrían ser posibles factores de riesgo para el desarrollo de hernia perineal después de la resección abdominoperineal. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B856. (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon).

Retrospective analysis of risk factors for postoperative perineal hernia after endoscopic abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer

Background

In contrast to open-surgery abdominoperineal excision (APE) for rectal cancer, postoperative perineal hernia (PPH) is reported to increase after extralevator APE and endoscopic surgery. In this study, therefore, we aimed to determine the risk factors for PPH after endoscopic APE.

Methods

A total 73 patients who underwent endoscopic APE for rectal cancer were collected from January 2009 to March 2020, and the risk factors for PPH were analyzed retrospectively.

Results

Nineteen patients (26%) developed PPH after endoscopic APE, and the diagnosis of PPH was made at 9–393 days (median: 183 days) after initial surgery. Logistic regression analysis showed that absence of pelvic peritoneal closure alone increased the incidence of PPH significantly (odds ratio; 13.76, 95% confidence interval; 1.48–1884.84, p = 0.004).

Conclusions

This preliminary study showed that pelvic peritoneal closure could prevent PPH after endoscopic APE.

Meta-analysis of biological mesh reconstruction versus primary perineal closure after abdominoperineal excision of rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) of rectal cancer has been proposed to achieve better oncological outcomes. The resultant wide perineal wound, however, presents a challenge for primary closure and subsequent wound healing. This meta-analysis compared the outcomes of primary perineal closure with those of biological mesh reconstruction.

METHODS

The Medline and Embase search was performed for the publications comparing primary perineal closure to biological mesh reconstruction. Early perineal wound complications (seroma, infection, dehiscence) and late perineal wound complications (perineal hernia, chronic pain, and chronic sinus) were analyzed as primary endpoints. Intraoperative blood loss, operation time, and hospital stay were compared as secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the overall early wound complications after primary closure or biological mesh reconstruction (odds ratio (OR) of 0.575 with 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.241 to 1.373 and a P value of 0.213). The incidence of perineal hernia after 1 year was significantly high after primary closure of the perineal wounds (OR of 0.400 with 95% CI of 0.240 to 0.665 and a P value of 0.001). No significant differences were observed among other early and late perineal wound complications. The operation time and hospital stay were shorter after primary perineal closure (p 0.001).

CONCLUSION

A lower incidence of perineal hernia and comparable early perineal wound complications after biological mesh reconstruction show a relative superiority over primary closure. More randomized studies are required before a routine biological mesh reconstruction can be recommended for closure of perineal wounds after ELAPE.

Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy to Reduce Wound Complications after Abdominoperineal Resection

INTRODUCTION

Abdominoperineal resection is associated with a high rate of wound complications. A high degree of wound tension, a common contributor to wound breakdown and complications, may be mitigated by incisional negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT). Although NPWT has been shown to reduce complications associated with open and complex wounds, there is a paucity of data regarding its prophylactic use for incisional wounds.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of NPWT use on surgical wound complications of abdominoperineal resection for malignancy.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review by querying the PubMed database for studies from 1990 to 2019 and included English-language studies that used incisional NPWT for closed wounds from abdominoperineal resection in malignancy cases.

RESULTS

Five studies with a total of 76 patients were included. Their findings showed reduced rates of surgical site complications with the use of incisional NPWT. Another 2 studies describing the use of prophylactic NPWT to expedite secondary closure of the surgical wound followed by incisional wound therapy were separately categorized and included 8 patients, none of whom experienced wound wound complications.

DISCUSSION

Additional, prospective research is needed to confirm the benefit of prophylactic incisional NPWT.