Laparoscopic repair of postoperative perineal hernia using a two-mesh technique

Postoperative perineal hernia repair: what is the evidence?

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

Techniques of perineal hernia repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Perineal hernias are rare, underreported and poorly studied complications of extensive pelvic surgeries. Their management is challenging, with currently no treatment algorithm available.

METHOD

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched. Studies comprising at least 3 patients who underwent surgical perineal hernia repair were included. The primary outcome was perineal hernia recurrence. The secondary outcomes were overall complications and surgical site occurrences.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies were included, comprising 325 patients undergoing 347 repairs. Overall complications were 33% (95% confidence interval 24%-43%) in the entire cohort, 31% (19%-44%) after perineal repair, 39% (14%-67%) after abdominal repair, and 36% (19%-53%) after mesh repair (20% with biological, 46% with synthetic mesh). The surgical site occurrence rate was 18% (8%-29%). The overall recurrence rate was 22% (15%-29%). Recurrence after perineal repair was 19% (10%-29%): 20% with mesh (25% with biological, 19% with synthetic), 24% with primary repair, and 39% with flap repair. Recurrence after an abdominal repair was 18% (11%-26%): 16% with laparoscopic, 12% with open, 16% with mesh (24% with biological, 16% with synthetic), 30% with primary, and 25% with flap repair. No significant differences could be found in the meta-analysis regarding overall complications and recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Synthetic mesh repair seems to be associated with a lower recurrence rate than other techniques, especially after an abdominal approach. The perineal and abdominal approaches appear to be safe, with similar recurrence rates. The combined approach seems promising, but more evidence is needed.

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

AIM

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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).

A new method of robot-assisted laparoscopic repair of perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection: a case report

INTRODUCTION

Perineal hernia is a protrusion of the pelvic floor which contains intra-abdominal viscera. The occurrence of perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection (APR) is rare, but it has been reported in recent years that the incidence of perineal hernia after rectal cancer surgery has increased. This has been attributed to a shift towards extralevator abdominoperineal resection, together with more frequent and long-term use of neoadjuvant therapy.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

Here, we report a patient with perineal hernia 5 years after APR surgery for rectal cancer. We decided to perform robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery on this patient using the da Vinci Surgical System. The perineal hernia was repaired by primary closure with the placement of a non-absorbable synthetic mesh as reinforcement for the pelvic floor. No complications occurred during the operation, and the patient was discharged on the third day after the operation. Clinical follow-up proceeded at the designated time intervals without difficulties.

DISCUSSION

The recurrence rates of perineal hernia are still very high, and due to poor view, suturing, and mesh placement in the deep pelvis, surgeons face many challenges. Many methods have been described, but there is still no consensus as to the optimal repair technique for perineal hernia.

CONCLUSION

Perineal hernias can be repaired with robot-assisted laparoscopy. Furthermore, compared with the open and laparoscopic methods, suturing and mesh placement are easier with the robot approach.

The management of perineal hernia following abdomino-perineal excision for cancer

PURPOSE

Perineal hernia (PH) is a tardive complication following abdomino-perineal resection (APR). Many repair methods are described and evidences are lacking. The aim of this study was to report PH management, analyze surgery outcomes and review the available literature.

METHODS

We retrospectively included all consecutive PH repair after APR performed between 2001 and 2017. We recorded data on APR surgery, PH symptoms and repair, and follow-up (recurrence and morbidity). Literature review included published articles on PubMed between 1960 and 2017.

RESULTS

24 PH repairs were included. The approach was perineal N = 16, abdominal N = 5 and combined N = 3. A biological mesh was used for 17, a synthetic for 5 and a flap for 2 patients. The median follow-up was 25 months. Overall morbidity was 37.5% (N = 9): 37.5% for the perineal, 20% for the abdominal, and 66.7% for the combined approach. Complications occurred in 35.3% of biological and 20% of synthetic mesh repairs. Recurrence rate was 41.7%, similar for biological (n = 8, 47.1%) and synthetic meshs (n = 2; 40%). No recurrence occurred in the flap group. Depending of the approach, we found 50% for perineal (n = 8) and 40% of the abdominal cohort (N = 2). Among twelve studies, recurrence rates ranged from 0 to 66.7%. Abdominal or laparoscopic approach with synthetic mesh was associated with less recurrences (0 and 12.5% respectively) and complications (37.5% and 9.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Recurrences following PH repair are high irrespective of the repair technique. More studies are necessary to identify PH risk factors and decide the appropriate perineal reconstruction.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic repair of perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection: A case report and review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Perineal hernia is a protrusion of the pelvic floor containing intra-abdominal viscera. The occurrence of postoperative perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection (APR) is rare, but reports have indicated a recent increase in occurrence following surgical treatment for rectal cancer. This has been attributed to a shift towards extralevator abdominoperineal resection, together with more frequent and long-term use of neoadjuvant therapy.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

Here, we report the case of a patient who underwent APR for cancer. Twenty months postoperative, a perineal hernia was detected. The patient was electively scheduled for surgery. Robot-assisted laparoscopy was performed using the da Vinci Surgical System. The perineal hernia was repaired by primary closure with the placement of Symbotex Composite mesh as reinforcement for the pelvic floor. The surgery was performed without any adverse events, and the patient was discharged the day after surgery. Clinical follow-up proceeded at the designated time intervals without difficulties.

DISCUSSION

Recurrence rates of perineal hernia remain high, and surgeons face numerous challenges related to poor view, suturing and mesh placement in the deep pelvis. Numerous approaches have been described, but there is still no consensus as to the optimal repair technique for perineal hernia.

CONCLUSION

Symptomatic perineal hernias can feasibly be repaired with robot-assisted laparoscopy. Furthermore, suturing and mesh placement require less effort with the robot approach when compared to the open and laparoscopic approaches. These promising findings are demonstrated in the included video.

Perineal hernia repair after abdominoperineal excision or extralevator abdominoperineal excision: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

The incidence of perineal hernia after abdominoperineal excision and extralevator abdominoperineal excision ranges from 1 to 26%. In this systematic review, we compared surgical options and postoperative outcomes of perineal hernia repair in this setting from 2012 to 2016 with findings in a review of publications 1944-2011.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed database using the keywords "hernia" AND "perineum" identified 392 papers published from 1946 to 2016. Two hundred and ninety-six papers published before 2012 were excluded and 96 were found to be potentially relevant.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies with a total of 108 patients were included in the final analysis. Perineal hernia repair was performed using the perineal approach in 75 patients (69.44%), the laparoscopic approach in 25 patients (23.14%), the open abdominal approach in three patients (2.77%) and the laparoscopic perineal approach in three patients (2.77%) and the open abdominoperineal approach in two patients (1.8%). Non-absorbable mesh was used in 41 (37.96%) of cases, composite mesh in 20 (18.51%) and biological mesh in 19 (17.59%). Flap reconstruction was used in 25 patients (23.14%). First and second recurrences were observed in 26 (24.07%) and 7 (26.92%) cases, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Comparison of perineal hernia repair from 1944 to 2011 and from 2012 to 2016 showed that perineal and laparoscopic approaches are currently the most commonly used techniques. Primary defect closure was abandoned in favor of synthetic or composite mesh placement. Use of flap reconstruction spread rapidly and the recurrence rate was low. Randomized control trials and a larger sample size are needed to confirm these data and to develop a gold standard treatment for secondary hernia repair after abdominoperineal excision or extralevator abdominoperineal excision.

Is there a place for a biological mesh in perineal hernia repair?

Purpose

This study aimed to determine the outcome of perineal hernia repair with a biological mesh after abdominoperineal resection (APR).

Method

All consecutive patients who underwent perineal hernia repair with a porcine acellular dermal mesh between 2010 and 2014 were included. Follow-up was performed by clinical examination and MRI.

Results

Fifteen patients underwent perineal hernia repair after a median of 25 months from APR. Four patients had a concomitant contaminated perineal defect, for which a gluteal fasciocutaneous flap was added in three patients. Wound infection occurred in three patients. After a median follow-up of 17 months (IQR 12–24), a clinically recurrent perineal hernia developed in 7 patients (47 %): 6 of 11 patients after a non-cross-linked mesh and 1 of 4 patients after a cross-linked mesh (p = 0.57). Routine MRI at a median of 17 months revealed a recurrent perineal hernia in 7 of 10 evaluable patients, with clinical confirmation of recurrence in 5 of these 7 patients. No recurrent hernia was observed in the three patients with combined flap reconstruction for contaminated perineal defects.

Conclusion

A high recurrence rate was observed after biological mesh repair of a perineal hernia following APR.