Extralevator abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer with biological mesh for pelvic floor reconstruction

European Society of Coloproctology guidance on the use of mesh in the pelvis in colorectal surgery

This is a comprehensive and rigorous review of currently available data on the use of mesh in the pelvis in colorectal surgery. This guideline outlines the limitations of available data and the challenges of interpretation, followed by best possible recommendations.

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.

A low incidence of perineal hernia when using a biological mesh after extralevator abdominoperineal excision with or without pelvic exenteration or distal sacral resection in locally advanced rectal cancer patients

Background

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE), abdominoperineal excision (APE) or pelvic exenteration (PE) with or without sacral resection (SR) for locally advanced rectal cancer leaves a significant defect in the pelvic floor. At first, this defect was closed primarily. To prevent perineal hernias, the use of a biological mesh to restore the pelvic floor has been increasing. The aim of this study, was to evaluate the outcome of the use of a biological mesh after ELAPE, APE or PE with/without SR.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted on patients who had ELAPE, APE or PE with/without SR with a biological mesh (Permacol™) for pelvic reconstruction in rectal cancer in our center between January 2012 and April 2015. The endpoints were the incidence of perineal herniation and wound healing complications.

Results

Data of 35 consecutive patients [22 men, 13 women; mean age 62 years (range 31–77 years)] were reviewed. Median follow-up was 24 months (range 0.4–64 months). Perineal hernia was reported in 3 patients (8.6%), and was asymptomatic in 2 of them. The perineal wound healed within 3 months in 37.1% (n = 13), within 6 months in 51.4% (n = 18) and within 1 year in 62.9% (n = 22). In 17.1% (n = 6), the wound healed after 1 year. It was not possible to confirm perineal wound healing in the remaining 7 patients (20.0%) due to death or loss to follow-up. Wound dehiscence was reported in 18 patients (51.4%), 9 of whom needed vacuum-assisted closure therapy, surgical closure or a flap reconstruction.

Conclusions

Closure of the perineal wound after (EL)APE with a biological mesh is associated with a low incidence of perineal hernia. Wound healing complications in this high-risk group of patients are comparable to those reported in the literature.

Multicentre, randomised trial comparing acellular porcine collagen implant versus gluteus maximus myocutaneous flap for reconstruction of the pelvic floor after extended abdominoperineal excision of rectum: study protocol for the Nordic Extended Abdominoperineal Excision (NEAPE) study

INTRODUCTION

Different surgical techniques are used to cover the defect in the floor of the lesser pelvis after an 'extralevator' or 'extended' abdominoperineal excision for advanced rectal cancer. However, these operations are potentially mutilating, and the reconstruction method of the pelvic floor has been studied only sparsely. We aim to study whether a porcine-collagen implant is superior or equally beneficial to a gluteus maximus myocutaneous flap as a reconstruction method.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a multicentre non-blinded randomised controlled trial with the experimental arm using a porcine-collagen implant and the control arm using a gluteus maximus muscle and skin rotation flap. Considered for inclusion are patients with rectal cancer, who are operated on with a wide abdominoperineal rectal excision including most of the levator muscles and where the muscle remnants cannot be closed in the midline with sutures. Patients with a primary or recurrent rectal cancer with an estimated survival of more than a year are eligible. The randomisation is computer generated with a concealed sequence and stratified by participating hospital and preoperative radiotherapy regimen. The main outcome is physical performance 6 months after surgery measured with the timed-stands test. Secondary outcomes are perineal wound healing, surgical complications, quality of life, ability to sit and other outcomes measured at 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. To be able to state experimental arm non-inferiority with a 10% margin of the primary outcome with 90% statistical power and assuming 10% attrition, we aim to enrol 85 patients from May 2011 onwards.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the Regional Ethical Review board at Umeå University (protocol no: NEAPE-2010-335-31M). The results will be disseminated through patient associations and conventional scientific channels.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01347697; Pre-results.

Application of modified primary closure of the pelvic floor in laparoscopic extralevator abdominal perineal excision for low rectal cancer

AIM

To introduce a novel, modified primary closure technique of laparoscopic extralevator abdominal perineal excision (LELAPE) for low rectal cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data from 76 patients with rectal cancer who underwent LELAPE from March 2013 to May 2016. Patients were classified into the modified primary closure group (32 patients) and the biological mesh closure group (44 patients). The total operating time, reconstruction time, postoperative stay duration, total cost, postoperative complications and tumor recurrence were compared.

RESULTS

All surgery was successfully performed. The pelvic reconstruction time was 14.6 ± 3.7 min for the modified primary closure group, which was significantly longer than that of the biological mesh closure group (7.2 ± 1.9 min, P < 0.001). The total operating time was not different between the two groups (236 ± 20 min vs 248 ± 43 min, P = 0.143). The postoperative hospital stay duration was 8.1 ± 1.9 d, and the total cost was 9297 ± 1260 USD for the modified primary closure group. Notably, both of these categories were significantly lower in this group than those of the biological mesh closure group (P = 0.001 and P = 0.003, respectively). There were no differences observed between groups when comparing other perioperative data, long-term complications or oncological outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The modified primary closure method for reconstruction of the pelvic floor in LELAPE for low rectal cancer is technically feasible, safe and cost-effective.

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.