Indications for immediate tissue transfer for soft tissue reconstruction in visceral pelvic surgery

A comparison of surgical techniques for perineal wound closure following perineal excision: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To mitigate pelvic wound issues following perineal excision of rectal or anal cancer, a number of techniques have been suggested as an alternative to primary closure. These methods include the use of a biological/dual mesh, omentoplasty, muscle flap, and/or pelvic peritoneum closure. The aim of this network analysis was to compare all the available surgical techniques used in the attempt to mitigate issues associated with an empty pelvis.

METHODS

An electronic systematic search using MEDLINE databases (PubMed), EMBASE, and Web of Science was performed (Last date of research was March 15th, 2023). Studies comparing at least two of the aforementioned surgical techniques for perineal wound reconstruction during abdominoperineal resection, pelvic exenteration, or extra levator abdominoperineal excision were included. The incidence of primary healing, complication, and/or reintervention for perineal wound were evaluated. In addition, the overall incidence of perineal hernia was assessed.

RESULTS

Forty-five observational studies and five randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion reporting on 146,398 patients. All the surgical techniques had a comparable risk ratio (RR) in terms of primary outcomes. The pooled network analysis showed a lower RR for perineal wound infection when comparing primary closure (RR 0.53; Crl 0.33, 0.89) to muscle flap. The perineal wound dehiscence RR was lower when comparing both omentoplasty (RR 0.59; Crl 0.38, 0.95) and primary closure (RR 0.58; Crl 0.46, 0.77) to muscle flap.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical options for perineal wound closure have evolved significantly over the last few decades. There remains no clear consensus on the "best" option, and tailoring to the individual remains a critical factor.

Inferior Part of Rectus Abdominis Muscle Flap Outcomes after Abdominoperineal Resection: A Case Series Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

The standard surgical treatment for low rectal cancer is abdominoperineal resection (APR). Comparing to primary closure, immediate flap reconstruction has shown to have good outcomes. We aimed to assess the inferior rectus abdominis muscle flap complications after APR surgery, a new method of reconstruction.

METHODS

This study was conducted from 2014 to 2016 in a single center in Firoozgar Hospital, Tehran, Iran. Eighteen patients who underwent pelvic floor closure with inferior part of abdominis rectus musculofascial flap were included enrolled. The sampling method used in this study was census. All patients had distal rectoanal malignancies. A checklist including age, gender, tumor location, complications after surgery, tumor type, length of hospital stay, length of operation, neoadjuvant chemotherapy and neoadjuvant radiotherapy history was filled for all patients.

RESULTS

Among 18 participants, 27.8% were female. The mean age of participants was 58.28 ± 17.86 yr (minimum of 19 and the maximum of 89 yr). The pathology of the tumor in all but one of the cases was adenocarcinoma (94.4%). The overall complication rate after surgery was 27.8%. In total, 80% received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. In 12 months follow-up 2 patients needed reoperation.

CONCLUSION

Inferior part of rectus abdominis muscle flap was a reliable and comparable means of reconstruction after APR surgery with low rate of complications and mortality.

Trends in flap reconstruction of pelvic oncologic defects: Analysis of the national inpatient sample

BACKGROUND

Flap reconstruction of radiated pelvic oncologic defects decreases perineal wound-healing complications. How widely and how often reconstructions are performed, and how technical mastery and improved perioperative care has affected outcomes, is unknown. Our objective is to 1) provide a comprehensive evaluation of national trends in flap reconstruction of pelvic oncologic defects and 2) compare complications and length of stay (LOS) in patients with/without reconstruction.

METHODS

The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was queried (1998-2014) for patients diagnosed with cancer, primarily of the rectum and anus, who underwent abdominoperineal resection (APR) or pelvic exenteration (PE). Differences in complications and LOS were compared between patients with flap reconstruction versus primary closure. Regional and hospital outcomes were also analyzed.

RESULTS

The cohort included 117,923 adult patients; 3,673 (3.1%) underwent flap reconstruction. Flap reconstruction rates increased from 0.8% in 1998 to 9.8% in 2014. Extirpative procedures decreased 37.4% from 1998 to 2014. Flap reconstruction decreased risk of wound breakdown (OR 0.87; p = 0.0029) and need for secondary closure of dehiscence (OR 0.82; p = 0.0023) between periods 1998-2009 and 2010-2014. Median LOS was higher for flap patients (median [IQR] of 9.8 [7.2,14.8] vs. 7.9 [6.1-11.0; p < 0.0001) and decreased over time.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of flap reconstruction for pelvic oncologic defects increased from 1998 to 2014, with a reduction in LOS. Following flap reconstruction, overall complications are higher, but wound breakdown and dehiscence requiring reclosure are decreasing, suggesting technique maturation. We anticipate flap reconstruction rates will increase with further improvement in patient outcomes.

Pelvic Reconstruction following Abdominoperineal Resection and Pelvic Exenteration: Management Practices among Plastic and Colorectal Surgeons

BACKGROUND

 Pelvic reconstruction with a muscle flap significantly improves postoperative outcomes following abdominoperineal resection (APR). Despite it being the gold standard, significant surgeon-selection bias remains with respect to the necessity of pelvic obliteration, flap choice, and ostomy placement. The objective of the study was to characterize management practices among colorectal surgeons (CSs) and plastic surgeons (PSs).

METHODS

 Specialty-specific surveys were distributed electronically to CSs and PSs via surgical societies. Surveys were designed to illustrate geographic and specialty-specific differences in management.

RESULTS

 Of 106 (54 CSs and 52 PSs) respondents (58% Canada, 21% Europe, 14% the United States, and 6% Asia/Africa), significant interdisciplinary differences in practices were observed. Most respondents indicated that multidisciplinary meetings were not performed (74% of CSs and 78% of PSs). For a nonradiated pelvic dead space with small perineal defect, 91% of CSs and 56% of PSs indicated that flap reconstruction was not required. For a radiated pelvic dead space with small perineal defect, only 54% of CSs and 6% of PSs indicated that there was no need for flap reconstruction. With respect to ostomy placement, 87% of CSs and 21% of PSs indicated that stoma placement through the rectus was superior. When two ostomies were required, most CSs preferred exteriorizing ostomies through bilateral recti and requesting thigh-based reconstruction. PSs favored the vertical rectus abdominis muscle (VRAM; 52%) over the gracilis (23%) and inferior gluteal artery perforator (IGAP; 23%) flaps. Among PSs, North Americans favor abdominally based flaps (VRAM 60%), while Europeans favor gluteal-based flaps (IGAP 78%).

CONCLUSION

 A lack of standardization continues to exist with respect to the reconstruction of pelvic defects following APR and pelvic exenteration. Geographic and interdisciplinary biases with respect to ostomy placement, flap choice, and role for pelvic obliteration continues to influence reconstructive practices. These cases should continue to be approached on a case by case basis, driven by pathology, presence of radiation, comorbidities, and the size of the pelvic and perineal defect.

How Big Is Too Big?: The Effect of Defect Size on Postoperative Complications of Vertical Rectus Abdominis Flap Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) flap has been frequently used for perineal reconstruction given the high potential for wound complications associated with direct closure of this area. However, the relationship between defect size and postoperative complications remains undefined.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of the last 20 years for VRAM flaps was performed. Defect size, age, body mass index (BMI), cause of defect, sex, radiation, and flap donor laterality were recorded. Complications of infection, partial flap loss, total flap loss, minor wounds, treated nonoperatively, and major wound, which required reoperation, were analyzed with respect to defect size. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the demographic and clinical characteristics of the included patients. Associations were assessed using binary logistic regression analysis, and difference in means for compared groups was assessed using the independent samples t test. P values were set at 5% for all comparisons.

RESULTS

There were 65 patients with VRAM flaps identified during the review period. Mean defect size was 204.71 cm2. Mean age was 63.97, and mean BMI was 27.18. History of prior radiation was noted in 90.77% of patients (n = 59). When adjusted for age and BMI, mean defect area was significantly different for patients with minor or major wounds. Larger perineal defects were associated with increased risk of major wound complications (odds ratio, 1.012; 95% confidence interval, 1.003-1.022).

CONCLUSIONS

The vertical rectus abdominis flap has been a workhorse flap for perineal reconstruction. Defect size does not affect risk of partial flap necrosis, complete flap loss, infection, abdominal fascial dehiscence, ventral hernia, or seroma, which supports the utility of VRAM flap for perineal reconstruction. Larger perineal defects are associated with increased risk for major wound complications, which required reoperation, regardless of age or BMI. Future studies should be performed to determine if there is a maximum defect size cutoff that limits the utility of VRAM flap reconstruction or to develop a predictive model to assess the risk of major wound complications based on defect size.

The Role of Autologous Flap Reconstruction in Patients with Crohn's Disease Undergoing Abdominoperineal Resection

BACKGROUND

Patients with symptomatic Crohn's disease who undergo abdominoperineal resection can experience impaired postoperative wound healing. This results in significant morbidity, burdensome dressing changes, and increased postoperative pain. When abdominoperineal resection is performed for oncological reasons, autologous flap reconstruction is occasionally performed to optimize wound healing and reconstruction outcomes. However, the role of flap reconstruction after abdominoperineal resection for Crohn's disease has not been established.

OBJECTIVE

This study examines the utility of flap reconstruction in patients with symptomatic Crohn's disease undergoing abdominoperineal resection. We hypothesize that patients with immediate flap reconstruction after abdominoperineal resection will demonstrate improved wound healing.

DESIGN

This study is a retrospective chart review.

SETTINGS

Eligible patients at our institution were identified from 2010 to 2018 by using a combination of Current Procedural Terminology, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes.

PATIENTS

Of 40 adult patients diagnosed with Crohn's disease, 20 underwent abdominoperineal resection only and 20 underwent abdominoperineal resection with flap reconstruction.

INTERVENTIONS

Immediate autologous flap reconstruction was performed after abdominoperineal resection.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were the presence of postoperative perineal wounds and postoperative wound care burden.

RESULTS

Patients in the abdominoperineal resection with flap reconstruction group demonstrated significantly worse preoperative disease traits, including fistula burden, than patients in the abdominoperineal resection only group. A lower number of patients tended to be associated with a persistent perineal wound in the flap group at 30 days (abdominoperineal resection with flap reconstruction = 55% vs abdominoperineal resection only = 70%; p = 0.327) and at 6 months (abdominoperineal resection with flap reconstruction = 25% vs abdominoperineal resection only = 40%; p = 0.311) postoperatively. There was also a trend toward a lower incidence of complications in the flap group. Patients in the abdominoperineal resection with flap reconstruction group tended to experience lower postoperative pain than patients in the abdominoperineal resection only group.

LIMITATIONS

This retrospective cohort study was limited by its reliance on data in electronic medical records, and by its small sample size and the fact that it was a single-institution study.

CONCLUSIONS

In select patients who have severe perianal fistulizing Crohn's disease, there may be a benefit to immediate flap reconstruction after abdominoperineal resection to lower postoperative wound care burden without significant intraoperative or postoperative risk. In addition, flap reconstruction may lead to lower postoperative pain. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B416.

EL ROL DE LA RECONSTRUCCIN CON COLGAJO AUTLOGO EN PACIENTES CON ENFERMEDAD DE CROHN SOMETIDOS A RESECCIN ABDOMINOPERINEAL

ANTECEDENTES:Los pacientes con enfermedad de Crohn sintomática que se someten a una resección abdominoperineal pueden experimentar una curación posoperatoria deficiente de la herida. Esto da como resultado una morbilidad significativa, cambios de apósito molestos y un aumento del dolor posoperatorio. Cuando se realiza una resección abdominoperineal por razones oncológicas, ocasionalmente se realiza una reconstrucción con colgajo autólogo para optimizar los resultados de la curación y reconstrucción de la herida. Sin embargo, no se ha establecido la función de la reconstrucción con colgajo después de la resección abdominoperineal para la enfermedad de Crohn.OBJETIVO:Este estudio examina la utilidad de la reconstrucción con colgajo en pacientes con enfermedad de Crohn sintomática sometidos a resección abdominoperineal. Presumimos que los pacientes con reconstrucción inmediata con colgajo después de la resección abdominoperineal demostrarán una mejor curación de la herida.DISEÑO:Revisión retrospectiva de expedientes.MARCO:Los pacientes elegibles en nuestra institución se identificaron entre 2010 y 2018 mediante una combinación de los códigos de Terminología actual de procedimientos, Clasificación internacional de enfermedades 9 y Clasificación internacional de enfermedades 10.PACIENTES:Cuarenta pacientes adultos diagnosticados con enfermedad de Crohn que se someten a resección abdominoperineal solamente (APR-solo = 20) y resección abdominoperineal con reconstrucción con colgajo (APR-colgajo = 20).INTERVENCIÓN (ES):Reconstrucción inmediata con colgajo autólogo después de la resección abdominoperineal.MEDIDAS DE RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES:Presencia de herida perineal posoperatoria y carga de cuidado de la herida posoperatoria.RESULTADOS:Los pacientes del grupo APR-colgajo demostraron rasgos de enfermedad preoperatoria significativamente peores, incluida la carga de la fístula, en comparación con los pacientes del grupo APR-solo. Un número menor de pacientes tendió a asociarse con una herida perineal persistente en el grupo de colgajo a los 30 días (APR-colgajo = 55% vs APR-solo = 70%; p = 0.327) y 6 meses (APR-colgajo = 25% vs APR-solo = 40%; p = 0.311) postoperatoriamente. También hubo una tendencia hacia una menor incidencia de complicaciones en el grupo APR-colgajo. Los pacientes del grupo APR-colgajo tendieron a experimentar menos dolor posoperatorio en comparación con el grupo APR-solo.LIMITACIONES:Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo basado en datos de historias clínicas electrónicas. Tamaño de muestra pequeño y estudio de una sola institución.CONCLUSIONES:En pacientes seleccionados que tienen enfermedad de Crohn fistulizante perianal grave, la reconstrucción inmediata del colgajo después de la resección abdominoperineal puede beneficiar a reducir la carga posoperatoria del cuidado de la herida sin riesgo intraoperatorio o posoperatorio significativo. Además, la reconstrucción con colgajo puede resultar un dolor posoperatorio menor. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B416.

Quality of Life, Sexual Functioning, and Physical Functioning Following Perineal Reconstruction with the Lotus Petal Flap

BACKGROUND

Lotus petal flaps (LPF) may be used for the reconstruction of extralevator abdominoperineal defects that cannot be closed primarily. Limited data are available on how perineal reconstruction with the LPF impacts on patients' quality of life (QoL), sexual functioning, and physical functioning.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was performed following perineal reconstruction with the LPF. The QoL of patients having undergone LPF reconstruction was compared with a control group in which perineal defects were closed without flaps. Sexual and physical functioning (presence of perineal herniation and range of motion [ROM] of the hip joints) could only be evaluated in the LPF group. Psychometrically sound questionnaires were used. Physical functioning was evaluated subjectively with binary questions and objectively by physical examination.

RESULTS

Of the 23 patients asked to participate, 15 (65%) completed the questionnaires and 11 (47%) underwent physical examination. In the control group, 16 patients were included. There were no significant differences in QoL between the LPF and control groups. Within the LPF group, 33% of patients were sexually active postoperatively compared with 87% preoperatively. No perineal herniation was found. The ROM of the hip joints was bilaterally smaller compared with the generally accepted values.

CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions should be made with care given the small sample size. Despite a supposedly larger resection area in the LPF group, QoL was comparable in both groups. Nonetheless, reconstruction seemed to affect sexual function and physical function, not hampering overall satisfaction.

Reconstruction of Perineal Defects: A Comparison of the Myocutaneous Gracilis and the Gluteal Fold Flap in Interdisciplinary Anorectal Tumor Resection

Introduction: Resection of anorectal malignancies may result in extensive perineal/pelvic defects that require an interdisciplinary surgical approach involving reconstructive surgery. The myocutaneous gracilis flap (MGF) and the gluteal fold flap (GFF) are common options for defect coverage in this area. Here we report our experience with the MGF/GFF and compare the outcome regarding clinical key parameters.

Methods: In a retrospective chart review, we collected data from the Department of Plastic Surgery of the University of Freiburg from December 2008–18 focusing on epidemiological, oncological, and therapy-related data including comorbidities (ASA Classification) and peri-/postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo-System).

Results: Twenty-nine patients were included with a mean follow-up of 17 months. Of the cases, 19 (65.5%) presented with recurrent disease, 21 (72.4%) received radiochemotherapy preoperatively, 2 (6.9%) received chemotherapy alone. Microscopic tumor free margins were achieved in 25 cases (86.2%). 17 patients (7 men, 10 women, rectal adenocarcinoma n = 11; anal squamous cell carcinoma n = 6; mean age 58.5 ± 10.68, mean BMI 23.1, mean ASA score 2.8) received a MGF (unilateral n = 10; bilateral n = 7). Twelve patients (7 men, 5 women, rectal adenocarcinoma n = 7; anal squamous cell carcinoma n = 4, proctodeal gland carcinoma n = 1, mean age 66.2 ± 9.2, mean BMI 23.6, mean ASA score 2.6) received coverage with a GFF (unilateral n = 4; bilateral n = 8). Mean operation time of coverage was 105 ± 9 min for unilateral and 163 ± 11 for bilateral MGFs, 70 ± 13 min for unilateral and 107 ± 14 for bilateral GFFs. Complications affected 62%. There was no significant difference in the complication rate between the MGF- and GFF-group. Complications were mainly wound healing disorders that did not extend the hospital stay. No flap loss and no complication that lead to long-lasting disability was documented (both groups). Pain-free sitting took more time in the GFF-group due to the location of the donor site.

Conclusion: MG-flaps and GF-flaps prove to be reliable and robust techniques for perineal/pelvic reconstruction. Though flap elevation is significantly faster for GF-flaps, preoperative planning and intraoperative Doppler confirmation are advisable. With comparable complication rates, we suggest a decision-making based on distribution of adipose tissue for dead space obliteration, intraoperative patient positioning, and perforator vessel quality/distribution.

Feasibility of a subcutaneous gluteal turnover flap without donor site scar for perineal closure after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Abdominoperineal resection (APR) carries a high risk of perineal wound morbidity. Perineal wound closure using autologous tissue flaps has been shown to be advantageous, but there is no consensus as to the optimal method. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a novel gluteal turnover flap (GT-flap) without donor site scar for perineal closure after APR.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent APR for primary or recurrent rectal cancer were included in a prospective non-randomised pilot study in two academic centres. Perineal reconstruction consisted of a unilateral subcutaneous GT-flap, followed by midline closure. Feasibility was defined as uncomplicated perineal wound healing at 30 days in at least five patients, and a maximum of two flap failures.

RESULTS

Out of 17 potentially eligible patients, 10 patients underwent APR with GT-flap-assisted perineal wound closure. Seven patients had pre-operative radiotherapy. Median-added theatre time was 38 min (range 35-44 min). Two patients developed a superficial perineal wound dehiscence, most likely because of the excessive width of the skin island. Two other patients developed purulent discharge and excessive serosanguinous discharge, respectively, resulting in four complicated wounds at 30 days. No flap failure occurred, and no radiological or surgical reinterventions were performed. Median length of hospital stay was 10 days (IQR 8-12 days).

CONCLUSIONS

The GT-flap for routine perineal wound closure after APR seems feasible with limited additional theatre time, but success seems to depend on correct planning of the width of the flap. The potential for reducing perineal morbidity should be evaluated in a randomised controlled trial.

Sarcopenia Is a Risk Factor for Infection for Patients Undergoing Abdominoperineal Resection and Flap-based Reconstruction

Abdominoperineal resection (APR) carries a high risk of morbidity. Preoperative risk assessment can help with patient counseling, minimize adverse outcomes, and guide surgeons in their choice of reconstruction. This study examined the impact of sarcopenia (low lean muscle mass) on postoperative complications after APR.

Abdominoperineal Excision: Technical Challenges in Optimal Surgical and Oncological Outcomes after Abdominoperineal Excision for Rectal Cancer

Treatment results in rectal cancer have improved significantly during the recent two decades, but local control and survival after abdominoperineal excision (APE) have not improved to the same degree as that seen after anterior resection (AR). The reason for this is an increased risk of inadvertent bowel perforations and tumor involved margins after APE as compared with AR. The conventional synchronous combined APE has not been a standardized procedure and consequently oncological outcomes have varied considerably between different institutions and in different reports. With the new concept of APE, based on well-defined anatomical structures, the procedure can be categorized as intersphincteric APE, extralevator APE, and ischioanal APE. This article discusses the technical aspects and results from this approach.

Laparoscopic Harvest of the Rectus Abdominis for Perineal Reconstruction

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

The rectus abdominis is a workhorse flap for perineal reconstruction, in particular after abdominoperineal resection (APR). Laparoscopic and robotic techniques for abdominoperineal surgery are becoming more common. The open harvest of the rectus abdominis negates the advantages of these minimally invasive approaches. (Sentence relating to advantages of laparoscopic rectus deleted here.) We present our early experience with laparoscopic harvest of the rectus muscle for perineal reconstruction. Three laparoscopic unilateral rectus abdominis muscle harvests were performed for perineal reconstruction following minimally invasive colorectal and urological procedures. The 2 patients who underwent APR also had planned external perineal skin reconstruction with local flaps. (Sentence deleted here to shorten abstract.) All rectus muscle harvests were performed laparoscopically. Two were for perineal reconstruction following laparoscopic APR, and 1 was for anterior vaginal wall reconstruction. This was done with 4 ports positioned on the contralateral abdomen. The average laparoscopic harvest time was 60–90 minutes. The rectus muscle remained viable in all cases. One patient developed partial necrosis of a posterior thigh fasciocutaneous flap after cancer recurrence. There were no pelvic abscesses, or abdominal wall hernias. Laparoscopic harvest of the rectus appears to be a cost-effective, reliable, and reproducible procedure for perineal with minimal donor-site morbidity. Larger clinical studies are needed to further establish the efficacy and advantages of the laparoscopic rectus for perineal reconstruction.

A comparison of the cost of primary closure or rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap closure of the perineum after abdominoperineal excision

AIM

Perineal wound complications following abdominoperineal resection continue to be a major challenge. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and cost of primary closure (PC) and rectus abdominis myocutaneous (RAM) flap reconstruction.

METHOD

This was a retrospective case review of consecutive patients by one surgeon over 11 years. Patient demographics, risk factors, operative details and complications were identified. Inpatient and outpatient costs were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 31 patients underwent a RAM reconstruction and 37 a PC. There were no significant differences in the incidence of wound complications or in the overall costs for either method of perineal closure. When there were no complications the mean costs were significantly higher in the RAM group ($20 948 vs $17 189, P = 0.005), mainly because of the longer operating time. However, the costs of perineal wound complications were greater in the PC group (8394 vs 25 911, P = 0.012). These wounds took longer to heal (median 2 months vs 5.5 months, P = 0.005) and more often required a further reconstructive surgical procedure (RAM 0 vs PC 8, P = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study reporting on the cost implications of PC and RAM flap reconstruction. The overall costs were similar. This implies appropriate clinical selection when choosing between procedures. While the RAM flap is more expensive to perform, the finding that it decreases the clinical severity and cost of perineal wound complications supports its use when there is a high risk of perineal wound complications.

Primary versus Flap Closure of Perineal Defects following Oncologic Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Abdominoperineal resection and pelvic exenteration for resection of malignancies can lead to large perineal defects with significant surgical-site morbidity. Myocutaneous flaps have been proposed in place of primary closure to improve wound healing. A systematic review was conducted to compare primary closure with myocutaneous flap reconstruction of perineal defects following abdominoperineal resection or pelvic exenteration with regard to surgical-site complications.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library databases. After data extraction from included studies, meta-analysis was performed to compare outcome parameters defining surgical-site complications of flap and primary closure.

RESULTS

Our systematic review yielded 10 eligible studies (one randomized controlled trial and nine retrospective studies) involving 566 patients (226 flaps and 340 primary closures). Eight studies described rectus abdominis myocutaneous flaps and two studies used gracilis flaps. In meta-analysis, primary closure was more than twice as likely to be associated with total perineal wound complications compared with flap closure (OR, 2.17; 95 percent CI, 1.34 to 3.14; p = 0.001). Rates of major perineal wound complications were also significantly higher in the primary closure group (OR, 3.64; 95 percent CI, 1.43 to 7.79; p = 0.005). There was no statistically significant difference between primary and flap closure for minor perineal wound complications, abdominal hernias, length of stay, or reoperation rate.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first systematic review with meta-analysis comparing primary closure with myocutaneous flap closure for pelvic reconstruction. The authors' results have validated the use of myocutaneous flaps for reducing perineal morbidity following abdominoperineal resection or pelvic exenteration.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, II.

Locally Recurrent Disease Related to Anal Canal Cancers

Surgery for anal cancer is usually reserved for patients with persistent disease or local recurrence after definitive chemoradiation therapy. Patients with local recurrence should be re-evaluated for evidence of metastatic disease using positron emission tomography-computed tomography, and the local anatomy should be delineated with MRI. Eligible patients should undergo tailored surgery with the aim of achieving an R0 resection. Management is best undertaken within a specialized multidisciplinary setting. Careful patient selection and shared decision making are paramount for achieving acceptable patient-centered outcomes.

Fasciocutaneous Lotus Petal Flap for Perineal Wound Reconstruction after Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision: Application for Reconstruction of the Pelvic Floor and Creation of a Neovagina

BACKGROUND

The extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) procedure creates an extensive soft tissue defect of the pelvic floor. It has been suggested that primary reconstruction reduces the risk of wound infection and delayed wound healing in this high-risk area. Use of myocutaneous flaps or omentoplasty are associated with functional limitations and complications. We performed the perineal variant of the lotus petal flap, which was originally described for vulvar reconstruction. We aimed to verify if application of the lotus petal flap in pelvic floor reconstruction after ELAPE meets the goals of an ideal reconstruction.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of 28 patients who underwent the lotus petal flap procedure for pelvic floor reconstruction after ELAPE between January 2011 and March 2014.

RESULTS

Median age was 62.1 years and 78.6 % of patients were female. In most patients the tumor was preoperatively irradiated (89.3 %) and in 28.6 % of the reconstructions a biological mesh was applied. No total flap loss occurred. Six (21.4 %) patients had no complications, while 13 (46.4 %) patients had minor complications (Clavien-Dindo grade I-II). Reoperation (Clavien-Dindo grade IIIb) was performed in nine patients (32.1 %), three of whom required a second lotus petal flap reconstruction. Median time until wound healing was 14 weeks. No additional surgery was performed for aesthetic problems.

CONCLUSIONS

Reconstruction of the pelvic floor after ELAPE using the fasciocutaneous lotus petal flap has limited major complications, but still with a high incidence of minor wound complications. This retrospective cohort study shows limited consequences on form and function.

Risk factors for wound complications in patients undergoing primary closure of the perineal defect after total proctectomy

PURPOSE

Perineal wounds after complete proctectomy are at risk for failure, with dramatic consequences on patients' health and quality of life. This study is aimed at identifying risk factors for wound complications in patients undergoing primary closure of the perineal defect after total proctectomy.

METHODS

Data from 284 patients undergoing total proctectomy from 2002 to 2012 either at the University of Chicago Medical Center or the Catholic University of Rome Hospital were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, the perineal wound complication rate was 21.8%. Successful conservative management was accomplished in 45.2% of cases. Complications occurred significantly more often in patients with a higher Charlson score index, with the diagnosis of rectal cancer, who had received preoperative radiation and who had a surgical drain placed at the time of initial surgery. Neoadjuvant radiation was the only significant risk factor at multivariate analysis (OR 4.40). In the rectal cancer subgroup, younger age, female gender, and preoperative radiation were predictors of wound complications. Based on that, a 3-point score (radiation, age, and gender (RAG)) was developed. Patients with a score of 3 had a 50% risk of developing a perineal wound complication.

CONCLUSIONS

Perineal wound complications are a common and burdensome problem after total proctectomy. Preoperative radiation is the single most significant and controllable risk factor predicting perineal wound failure. In the presence of multiple, non-modifiable risk factors, alternative approaches to primary closure should be considered in managing complex perineal defects.

Intestinal obstruction following harvest of VRAM-flap for reconstruction of a large perineal defect

A patient with locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the rectum was operated with abdominoperineal resection and perineal reconstruction with a vertical rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap. Six days postoperatively, there was herniation of the small bowel, between the anterior and posterior rectus sheaths, to a subcutaneous location.

Incisional reinforcement in high-risk patients

Hernia formation after surgical procedures continues to be an important cause of surgical morbidity. Incisional reinforcement at the time of the initial operation has been used in some patient populations to reduce the risk of subsequent hernia formation. In this article, reinforcement techniques in different surgical wounds are examined to identify situations in which hernia formation may be prevented. Mesh use for midline closure, pelvic floor reconstruction, and stoma site reinforcement is discussed. Additionally, the use of retention sutures, closure of the open abdomen, and reinforcement after component separation are examined using current literature. Although existing studies do not support the routine use of mesh reinforcement for all surgical incisions, certain patient populations appear to benefit from reinforcement with lower rates of subsequent hernia formation. The identification and characterization of these groups will guide the future use of mesh reinforcement in surgical incisions.

Comparison of vertical and oblique rectus abdominis myocutaneous flaps for pelvic, perineal, and groin reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Wound complications after perineal and groin obliterative procedures are a significant cause of morbidity, particularly following chemoradiation therapy. Vertical and, increasingly, oblique rectus abdominis myocutaneous flaps have been used to fill potential dead space and bring healthy, vascularized tissue into the defect. The authors compared the complications and outcomes of patients undergoing perineal or groin reconstruction with vertical or oblique rectus abdominis myocutaneous flaps. They hypothesized that the oblique flap offers outcomes similar to those of the vertical flap, without an increased risk of complications.

METHODS

All patients who underwent immediate reconstruction of perineal, pelvic, or groin defects using vertical (n=49) or oblique rectus abdominis myocutaneous (n=22) flaps over the past 10 years at the University of Washington Medical Center were reviewed retrospectively. Patient, disease, and obliterative procedure characteristics and donor- and recipient-site complications were compared. Statistical analysis was performed using the t test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in major or minor donor- or recipient-site complication rates, need for augmented fascial closure, need for additional flaps, flap loss, readmission, or reoperation rate between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate reconstruction of perineal or groin defects with oblique rectus abdominis myocutaneous flaps results in complication rates similar to those with reconstruction using with vertical flaps. Oblique flap reconstruction is a reasonable and safe alternative, providing several distinct advantages over the vertical flap, including greater arc of rotation, thinner skin paddle, less bulk, and limited fascial harvest.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Controversies in abdominoperineal excision

Abdominoperineal excision (APE) is a necessary operation in many patients with low rectal cancer. Outcomes after this procedure, however, have been variable and often suboptimal. With a new concept of APE, three different types of procedures can be described, based on pelvic and pelvic floor anatomy: intersphincteric APE, extralevator APE (ELAPE), and ischioanal APE. Improved outcomes have been reported after ELAPE but the concept is still controversial and there are disagreements related to the extent of pelvic floor removal, positioning of the patient, and methods of pelvic floor reconstruction.

Outcomes after biological mesh reconstruction of the pelvic floor following extra-levator abdominoperineal excision of rectum (APER)

BACKGROUND

Extra-levator abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (ELAPER) for low rectal cancer is used to avoid the adverse oncological outcomes of inadvertent perforation and a positive circumferential resection margin associated with the conventional APER technique. This wider excision creates a large defect requiring pelvic floor reconstruction, and there is still controversy regarding the best method of closure. The aim of this study is to present outcomes of biological mesh pelvic floor reconstruction following ELAPER.

METHODS

Prospective data on consecutive patients having ELAPER for low rectal cancer at a single UK institution between October 2008 and March 2013 were collected. The perineum was reconstructed using a biological mesh and the short-term outcomes were evaluated, focusing particularly on perineal wound complications and perineal hernias.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients were included [median age 62 years, range 40-72 years, 27 males (79 %)]. The median operative time was 248 min (range 120-340 min). The median length of hospital stay was 9 days (range 4-20 days). There were three perineal complications (9 %) requiring surgical intervention, but no meshes were removed. There were no perineal hernias. The median length of follow-up was 21 months (range 1-54 months). The overall mortality was 9 % from distant metastases.

CONCLUSIONS

Our series adds to the increasing evidence that good outcomes can be achieved for pelvic floor reconstruction with biological mesh following ELAPER without the additional use of myocutaneous flaps. The low serious complication rate, good outcomes in perineal wound healing and the absence of perineal hernias demonstrates that this is a safe and feasible procedure.

Effect of technique on postoperative perineal wound infections in abdominoperineal resection

BACKGROUND

Perineal wound infection (PWI) after abdominoperineal resection causes a burden for patients and health systems. We sought to determine the effect of patient positioning on the incidence of postoperative surgical site infection.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent APR in our hospital system over a 10-year period. Univariate analysis was performed to identify characteristics associated with position and PWI. A logistic model was developed to assess the relationship of position and PWI, with adjustment for confounders.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics were similar for the prone and lithotomy positions. Operative time was less for the prone than for the lithotomy position. The prone position was associated with a reduced risk of PWI. After adjustment for potential confounders, the prone position remained significantly associated with a reduction in PWI.

CONCLUSIONS

Positioning patients in the prone position results in a lower occurrence of postoperative PWI and shorter operative time. We advocate this technique for most indications of APR.

Short-term outcome after gluteus maximus myocutaneous flap reconstruction of the pelvic floor following extra-levator abdominoperineal excision of the rectum

AIM

Extra-levator abdominoperineal excision (APE) of the rectum has been introduced with the aim of improving the oncological outcome of low rectal cancer. The procedure includes resection of the levator muscles en bloc with the mesorectum, leaving a larger perineal defect than after conventional APE. This study reports short-term outcome of gluteus maximus myocutaneous flap reconstruction on perineal wound healing.

METHOD

Sixty-five patients were studied after extra-levator APE and a one-sided myocutaneous flap for a low or locally recurrent rectal cancer at the Karolinska University Hospital from January 2002 to December 2008. Fifty-nine had received neoadjuvant radio- or radiochemotherapy. All perineal complications occurring within 30 days after surgery were registered. In addition, the status of the perineal reconstruction at 6 months and 1 year after surgery was assessed based on medical records from outpatient visits.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven (41.5%) patients had one or more perineal wound complications. A minor wound infection occurred in 15, while 12 had either a more severe infection with dehiscence or a pelvic abscess. The reconstruction was completely healed in 91% of the patients at 1 year.

CONCLUSION

Although the vast majority of the perineal reconstructions were healed at 1 year, the short-term perineal wound complication rate of gluteus maximus flap reconstruction was high.

Biological mesh reconstruction of perineal wounds following enhanced abdominoperineal excision of rectum (APER)

INTRODUCTION

An abdominoperineal excision of rectum (APER) may be required for rectal tumours less than 6 cm from the anal verge. Recently, the cylindrical APER has been used to prevent the "surgical waist" and so decrease margin involvement. However, removal of the levators leaves a large defect. Myocutaneous flaps [e.g. vertical rectus abdominis (VRAM)] are often used to fill the cylindrical resection defect, but have disadvantages associated with operative time, expertise and morbidity. We report our early experience of pelvic floor reconstruction with a biological mesh following cylindrical APER.

METHODS

Data on consecutive patients having cylindrical APER between January 2008 and November 2010 were collected. Outcomes were compared between a VRAM reconstruction group and a mesh group.

RESULTS

In 15 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer, five patients had VRAM pelvic floor reconstruction prior to ten patients having biosynthetic mesh repairs. The median operative time for the VRAM cohort was 405 min, compared with 259 min for the mesh (p = 0.0013). The median length of postoperative stay was 20 days for VRAM and 10 days for the mesh group (p = 0.067). There were four early complications for the VRAM group compared with seven for the mesh cohort (p = 0.37). The median cost per patient for the VRAM cohort was £11,075 compared to a median cost of £6,513 for the Mesh (p = 0.0097).

CONCLUSION

The use of a biological mesh for pelvic floor reconstruction following cylindrical APER is feasible with morbidity comparable to VRAM reconstruction. There is significant cost-saving using a biosynthetic mesh, mainly due to reduced length of stay.

Use of adjuvant techniques improves surgical outcomes of complex vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap reconstructions of pelvic cancer defects

BACKGROUND

Reconstruction of irradiated pelvic defects following oncologic resection requires dead-space obliteration to reduce wound healing complications. Although the vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) flap is often the best option for pelvic reconstruction following abdominoperineal resection or pelvic exenteration, donor- and recipient-site complications are common. The authors hypothesized that certain adjuvant techniques would improve pelvic VRAM flap outcomes.

METHODS

Six technical modifications to improve VRAM flap outcomes were evaluated: fascia-sparing VRAM flap, component separation donor-site closure, inlay mesh abdominal reinforcement, deepithelialized VRAM flap skin paddle, extended VRAM flap, and omental flap plus VRAM flap. Prospectively collected data from consecutive patients with immediate pelvic VRAM flap reconstruction from 2001 to 2009 were analyzed retrospectively. Donor- and recipient-site complications were compared between patients treated with each technical modification and all other study patients.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-five patients were included (mean follow-up, 25.1 months). Fascia-sparing VRAM flaps resulted in significantly fewer hernias (1.5 percent versus 11.5 percent, p < 0.01), with less dehiscence, abdominal bulge, and evisceration. Patients receiving donor-site mesh inlay had fewer postoperative hernias (2.6 percent versus 5.5 percent) but more abdominal laxity/bulge (7.7 percent versus 0 percent, p = 0.01). Minor recipient-site dehiscence was significantly lower with omental plus VRAM flaps (11.1 percent versus 32.5 percent, p < 0.05) and extended VRAM flaps (7.7 percent versus 30.8 percent, p < 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression identified omental plus VRAM flaps as protective against (p < 0.05), and increasing body mass index as predictive for (p = 0.009), perineal skin dehiscence.

CONCLUSIONS

Several technical modifications of VRAM flap reconstruction improve pelvic reconstruction outcomes and should be considered. Further prospective studies will be important to elucidate specific indications for each technique.

Combined latissimus dorsi and serratus anterior flaps for pelvic reconstruction

In recurrent pressure sores, adjacent tissue has already been consumed by multiple surgeries. Additional problems are several co-morbidities of patients. Especially, severe atherosclerosis would be a contraindication for using free flaps. However, microsurgical techniques allow circumventing these limitations and preparing even severely atherosclerotic vessels. We performed a total of eight sacral pressure sore coverage in our standardized fashion, using the free combined latissimus dorsi and serratus anterior free flaps. All patients had severe atherosclerosis and needed large soft tissue coverage of the sacral defects. Five patients presented after bowel resection, three with recurrent sacral pressure sores. The average follow-up was 12 months. Postoperatively, all patients were allowed to be prone on the operated area. One minor wound dehiscence was sutured in local anesthesia. CT imaging analysis of the pelvis showed complete void space coverage. The combined latissimus dorsi and serratus anterior flaps are a valuable tool for pelvic reconstruction in our hands. In addition, severe atherosclerosis should not be considered an obstacle to microsurgery and the use of free flaps.

Multidisciplinary approach to recurrent/unresectable rectal cancer: how to prepare for the extent of resection

Local recurrence from rectal cancer is a complex problem that should be managed by a multidisciplinary team. Pelvic re-irradiation and intraoperative radiation should be considered in the management of these patients. Long-term survival can be achieved in patients who undergo radical surgery with negative margins of resections. The morbidity of these procedures is high and at times may compromise quality of life. Palliative surgical procedures can be considered; however, in some cases, palliative resections may not be better than nonsurgical palliation.

Component separation improves outcomes in VRAM flap donor sites with excessive fascial tension

BACKGROUND

The vertical rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (VRAM) flap has numerous uses in pelvic reconstruction; however, flap harvest can result in abdominal wall morbidity. The authors hypothesized that combining component separation with fascial advancement closure would result in acceptable surgical donor-site outcomes.

METHODS

Patients were evaluated who underwent VRAM flap reconstruction for contaminated pelvic defects and component separation with fascial advancement closure or tension-bearing primary fascial closure for VRAM flap donor-site defects between 2006 and 2009. The indication for component separation was the inability to approximate fascial edges (1) at all or (2) without excessive fascial tension, creating a high risk of postoperative failure. Primary outcome indicators included wound complications, myofascial laxity, and incisional hernia.

RESULTS

Seventy-four patients were included in the study: 15 who underwent component separation and 59 who underwent primary fascial closure. The mean follow-up was 16 months (range, 6 to 39 months). The incidences of seroma, infection, and skin and fascial dehiscence were higher in the primary fascial closure group (39 percent) than in the component separation group (13 percent) (p<0.053). There was a fourfold greater incidence of incisional hernia in the primary fascial closure group (24 percent) than in the component separation group (6 percent). There was also a trend toward a higher incidence of myofascial laxity in the primary fascial closure group (14 percent) than in the component separation group (6 percent).

CONCLUSIONS

Component separation was effective in allowing closure of VRAM donor sites that were otherwise impossible to reapproximate without excessive fascial tension. Component separation closures resulted in fewer postoperative wound complications, hernias, and bulges, despite a more difficult closure, and should be considered when fascial closure tension would be excessive.

Toxicity and complications of preoperative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Capecitabine is an attractive radiosensitizer. In this study acute toxicity and surgical complications were evaluated in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer following total mesorectal excision (TME) after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with capecitabine.

METHODS

Between 2004 and 2008, consecutive patients with clinical tumour category (cT) 3-4 (with a threatened circumferential resection margin or cT3 within 5 cm of the anal verge) or clinical node category 2 rectal cancer were treated with preoperative CRT (25 × 2 Gy, capecitabine 825 mg/m(2) twice daily, days 1-33). TME followed 6 weeks later. Toxicity was scored according to the Common Terminology Criteria (version 3.0) and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scoring systems. Treatment-related surgical complications were evaluated for up to 30 days after discharge from hospital using the modified Clavien-Dindo classification.

RESULTS

Some 147 patients were analysed. The mean cumulative dose of capecitabine was 95 per cent and 98·0 per cent of patients received at least 45 Gy. One patient died from sepsis following haematological toxicity. Grade 3-5 toxicity developed in 32 patients (21·8 per cent), especially diarrhoea (10·2 per cent) and radiation dermatitis (11·6 per cent). There were no deaths within 30 days after surgery. Anastomotic leakage and perineal wound complications developed after 13 of 47 low anterior resections and 23 of 62 abdominoperineal resections. Surgical reintervention was required in 30 patients. Twenty-seven patients (19·6 per cent) of 138 patients who had a laparotomy were readmitted within 30 days after initial hospital discharge.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative CRT with capecitabine is associated with acceptable acute toxicity, significant surgical morbidity but minimal postoperative mortality.

The utility of the posterior thigh flap for complex pelvic and perineal reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Complex wounds of the pelvis and perineum commonly occur as a result of primary and secondary ablative procedures for colorectal and gynecologic malignancies, particularly following previous radiation therapy to these regions. In certain instances, the more traditional flaps such as the vertical rectus abdominis and gracilis flaps are either unavailable or unsuitable for the reconstruction of particular defects. The posterior thigh flap has been described previously for pelvic defects but has not become as widely accepted as other regional flaps.

METHODS

This study sought to retrospectively review the authors' experience with the posterior thigh flap as an alternative to these more commonly performed transfers for difficult wounds of the perineum and pelvic structures. A total of 27 posterior thigh flaps were used in 19 patients for complex perineal wound closure.

RESULTS

Successful transfer of the posterior thigh flap was noted in 26 of 27 flaps (11 unilateral and eight bilateral), with only one flap failure (3.7 percent). Primary wound healing was ultimately achieved in all patients; however, early wound-healing complications were common (53 percent). Secondary procedures were necessary in seven patients (37 percent), with only one patient requiring a secondary flap procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors found the posterior thigh flap to be a useful and reliable flap for coverage of complex perineal wounds. This was particularly true for those patients in whom a laparotomy was best avoided and those who have had both urinary and fecal diversion.

Utility of the omentum in pelvic floor reconstruction following resection of anorectal malignancy: patient selection, technical caveats, and clinical outcomes

This study assesses the usefulness of the omentum in the reconstruction of complex perineal defects, following abdominoperineal resection or pelvic exenteration, for anorectal malignancy. Between 2000 and 2008, 70 patients (mean age: 59 years) with anorectal malignancy underwent abdominoperineal resection (n = 57) or pelvic exenteration (n = 13) and were reconstructed by primary repair alone (n = 13), primary repair with omentum (n = 16), myocutaneous flap alone (n = 28), or myocutaneous flap with omentum (n = 13). Patients with and without omental flaps were compared by Student t test and chi2 analysis. Omental flaps were based on a single pedicle, tunneled in the retrocolic plane lateral to the ligament of Treitz, and transposed across the sacrum to the pelvic floor. In total, 29 patients had pelvic floor and perineal reconstruction with the omentum, and 41 patients had reconstruction without the omentum. Incidence of major pelvic complications (abscess, urinoma, deep vein thrombosis, flap dehiscence, hernia, bowel obstruction, fistula) was greater in the "no omentum" group (25/41 patients, 61%), compared with the "omentum" group (6/29 patients, 21%) (P < 0.01). No differences were observed regarding age, stage, incidence of radiotherapy, blood loss, length of stay, or mortality. Use of the omentum as a primary flap, or in combination with a myocutaneous flap, in the reconstruction of complex perineal defects, is associated with a decreased incidence of postoperative complications, strongly supporting the use of the omentum in pelvic floor reconstruction.

Complications of perineal surgery

Anorectal procedures are associated with significant morbidity and include complications of the perineum, which can cause substantial difficulty for the patient. Prevention of perineal complications is key, but many anorectal procedures are performed in difficult situations such as large bulky tumors or inflammatory bowel diseases. In this review, the authors outline many of the complications encountered following both simple and complex anorectal procedures while highlighting best evidence for treatment.

Wound complications in rectal cancer patients undergoing primary closure of the perineal wound after abdominoperineal resection

PURPOSE

Perineal wound complications have a significant impact on postoperative morbidity after excision of the rectum and anus. The aim of this study is to evaluate factors affecting perineal wound complications after primary closure of the wound following abdominoperineal resection.

METHODS

Data were reviewed from all patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection for rectal carcinoma between 1982 and 2007. Data pertaining to demographics, tumor characteristics, and use of preoperative neoadjuvant therapy were retrieved. Complications studied included delayed wound healing, wound infection, dehiscence, abscess or sinus, reoperation, and perineal hernias. Patients who developed perineal wound complications (Group A) were compared with the remaining patients (Group B) to evaluate factors associated with the development of perineal wound complications.

RESULTS

Six hundred ninety-six patients (59% male) met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 63 years (standard deviation, 13), and the mean body mass index was 28.9 kg/m2 (standard deviation, 7.8). Two hundred seventy-three patients (39.2%) received neoadjuvant chemoradiation. The overall rate of wound complications was 16.2%, and reoperation was required in 5.2% of patients. Group A and Group B patients were similar with respect to age (P = 0.1), gender (P = 0.7), grade (P = 0.4), and stage of disease (P = 0.5). A greater proportion of Group A patients had associated comorbidity (P = 0.001), obesity (0.04), neoadjuvant chemoradiation (0.02), and intraoperative bleeding (0.04). In multivariate analysis, comorbidity was the only independent factor associated with the development of perineal complications (odds ratio, 1.8 (1.09-2.96)).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients have perineal wound healing without complications after abdominoperineal resection. In multivariate analysis, comorbidity was the only significant factor that predicted perineal wound complications.

Recent Experience with Abdominal Perineal Resection with Vertical Rectus Abdominis Myocutaneous Flap Reconstruction after Preoperative Pelvic Radiation

Abdominoperineal resection (APR) after pelvic radiation can be complicated by an increased rate of difficult to treat perineal wound complications. In an effort to improve postoperative morbidity after APR, myocutaneous flap reconstructions have been used. We review our recent experience with APR with vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap reconstruction (VRAM) after preoperative pelvic radiation. A retrospective review of patients who underwent APR with VRAM reconstruction after pelvic radiation from December 2004 to July 2008 was conducted. Outcome measures included demographics, comorbidities, length of stay, wound complications, and morbidity and mortality. Fifteen patients with a mean age of 61 ± 9 years underwent APR with VRAM reconstruction. Five patients also required posterior vaginectomy with the APR. Indications for APR were rectal cancer (n = 14, 93%) and anal canal cancer (n = 1, 7%). There were no intraoperative complications. Mean estimated blood loss was 635 ± 446 mL and mean intraoperative blood transfusion requirements were 1 ± 2 units. Mean length of hospital stay was 11 ± 4 days. Six (40%) patients had minor perineal wound complications. One (7%) patient had a perineal wound infection requiring reoperation with washout and reapproximation. There was no 30-day or in-hospital mortality. All VRAM flaps remained viable through follow-up. APR with VRAM flap reconstruction after preoperative pelvic radiation can be performed safely with limited wound complications and no mortality.