Repair of Perineal Hernia Following Abdominoperineal Excision with Biological Mesh: A Systematic Review

Incidence and risk factors for perineal hernia after robotic abdominoperineal resection: a single-center, retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Perineal hernia (PH) is a late complication of abdominoperineal resection (APR) that may compromise a patient's quality of life. The frequency and risk factors for PH after robotic APR adopting recent rectal cancer treatment strategies remain unclear.

METHODS

Patients who underwent robotic APR for rectal cancer between December 2011 and June 2022 were retrospectively examined. From July 2020, pelvic reinforcement procedures, such as robotic closure of the pelvic peritoneum and levator ani muscles, were performed as prophylactic procedures for PH whenever feasible. PH was diagnosed in patients with or without symptoms using computed tomography 1 year after surgery. We examined the frequency of PH, compared characteristics between patients with PH (PH+) and without PH (PH-), and identified risk factors for PH.

RESULTS

We evaluated 142 patients, including 53 PH+ (37.3%) and 89 PH- (62.6%). PH+ had a significantly higher rate of preoperative chemoradiotherapy (26.4% versus 10.1%, p = 0.017) and a significantly lower rate of undergoing pelvic reinforcement procedures (1.9% versus 14.0%, p = 0.017). PH+ had a lower rate of lateral lymph node dissection (47.2% versus 61.8%, p = 0.115) and a shorter operative time (340 min versus 394 min, p = 0.110). According to multivariate analysis, the independent risk factors for PH were preoperative chemoradiotherapy, not undergoing lateral lymph node dissection, and not undergoing a pelvic reinforcement procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

PH after robotic APR for rectal cancer is not a rare complication under the recent treatment strategies for rectal cancer, and performing prophylactic procedures for PH should be considered.

Management of a complicated colonexposed sacrococcygeal wound after pelvic exenteration: a case report

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

This work was supported by the Naval Medical University and the University of Shanghai for Science and Technology Joint Projects (2020-RZ04), the Innovative Clinical Research Program of Shanghai Changzheng Hospital (2020YLCYJ-Y16), and the academic project of Naval Medical University (2022QN073). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Transperineal Repair of Secondary Perineal Hernia Using a Mesh with a Memory-recoil Ring

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of transperineal repair of secondary perineal hernia (SPH) using a mesh with a memory-recoil ring.

Methods

Seven patients with SPH who underwent transperineal repair (TPR) between July 2010 and May 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. TPR was performed using a mesh with a memory-recoil ring.

Results

All SPHs developed after abdominoperineal resections in patients with anorectal malignancies. The median longitudinal and transverse diameters of the hernia orifice were 8 (7-10) cm and 6 (5-7) cm, respectively. In all cases, the mesh was fixed to the ischial tuberosity, residual levator muscle, coccygeus muscle, and coccyx after thorough dissection of the sac. The median operation time was 154 (142-280) min. Perioperative complications occurred in 2 cases (29%). One was enterotomy, which caused postoperative mesh infection requiring extraction of the mesh. The other was vaginal injury, which resulted in vaginal fistula but closed spontaneously. The median postoperative length of stay was 9 (5-14) days. No recurrence was observed during a median follow-up of 35 (9-151) months.

Conclusions

TPR using a mesh with a memory-recoil ring is safe, feasible and promising technique for SPH repairs.

Perineal Hernia Mesh Repair Using Only the Perineal Approach: How We Do It

Perineal hernia is a rare complication of rectal surgery. Different types of surgical approach have been described, but none of them have proven their superiority. Although there are many methods of closing the defect, we selected two cases to present from a series of five cases, in which the perineal hernia was successfully resolved surgically using only the perineal approach. The reconstruction of the perineal floor and closure of the defect were performed using a synthetic polypropylene mesh. The significance of this Technical Note article lies in the fact that we describe, step by step, a surgical technique for perineal hernia using just a perineal approach.

How to do it: perineal hernia repair

Perineal hernias are rare complications of surgeries like abdominoperineal resections. This submission is an educational piece outlining the steps to completing a posterior perineal hernia repair with mesh.

A three layered repair of a large perineal hernia: case report and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

A symptomatic perineal hernia is an uncommon complication after abdominoperineal resection (APR). Repairs of such hernias can be achieved by usage of autologous flaps, synthetic mesh, or biologic mesh, which reduce bowel adhesions. Studies have shown that prophylactic repair of the pelvic floor with biologic mesh during APR, can reduce the incidence of perineal hernia.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 71-year-old woman, after extended APR (eAPR) with primary closure of pelvic floor with absorbable mesh, presented to our outpatient clinic with a symptomatic, extensive perineal hernia. The patient underwent repair of the perineal hernia using a synthetic mesh and a bilateral gluteal flap procedure. In post operative care, signs of surgical site infection and a fluid collection demonstrated in a CT-scan, compelled a surgical drainage. A clear fluid negative for bacterial growth was drained and antibiotic treatment was initiated. After drainage, surgical site showed signs of significant improvement and patient was eventually discharged.

CONCLUSION

The rise in reported incidence of perineal hernia after eAPR coupled with the scarcity of data regarding the preferable repair technique suggests that there is a significant need for further prospective comparative studies.

Perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection – a systematic review

<b>Introduction:</b> Perineal hernia (PH), also termed pelvic floor hernia, is a protrusion of intraabdominal viscera into the perineum through a defect in the pelvic floor. </br></br> <b>Aim:</b> The study was conducted to evaluate the cases of perineal hernia resulting as a complication of abdominoperineal resection (APR) of rectal cancer. </br></br> <b> Material and methods:</b> 30 cases from 24 articles published in reputable peer reviewed journals were evaluated for eight variables including [I] patient age, [II] gender, [III] time since APR, [IV] clinical presentation, [V] approach to repair, [VI] type of repair, [VII] presence/absence of pelvic adhesions [VIII] complications. </br></br> <b>Results:</b> There was a total of 30 cases (18 males and 12 females) with a mean age of 71.5 years. The time of onset of symptoms ranged from 6 days to 12 years. Perineal lump with pain was the chief presenting feature followed by intestinal obstruction. Different approaches were adopted to repair by various methods. </br></br> <b>Conclusions:</b> Perineal hernia as a complication of abdominoperineal resection is reported increasingly nowadays, as the approach to management of rectal cancer has gradually got shifted from open to minimally invasive in recent years. There is a need to spread awareness about this condition, so that it is actively looked for, during the postoperative follow-up. Management is surgical repair; the approach and type of repair should be individualized.

Perineal eventration after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: anatomical, surgical and clinico-pathological landmarks

Perineal eventration (PE) is a rare complication after the lower rectal cancer resection surgery, affecting the quality of life of the patient. In 5.5 years of evolution, out of 620 patients with rectal cancer treated by curative surgery, 176 patients with lower ampullary rectal cancer treated by abdominoperineal resection (APR) with the closure of the defect by direct suture of the perineal floor were selected. Ten (5.6%) of them were diagnosed with PE. This paper shows the results of a retrospective study, which compares the clinico-pathological and therapeutic aspects of a subgroup of 166 patients (subgroup I) with APR without PE and a subgroup of 10 patients (subgroup II) with PE. Starting from the question of whether aspects can influence the evolution of PE, we aimed to investigate the similarities and differences between these two groups, from the histological, clinical and therapeutic points of view. Regarding the tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) staging, we encountered the following aspects: for the subgroup II with PE, pT3 predominated, stages N0 and N1 were equal (50%) and the absence of metastases (M0) was found in all cases; in subgroup I, pT3 and N0 also predominated, followed by N1 and N2, and for stage M, M0 is predominant, followed by M1. For the clinical profile of the PE group, the symptoms were characteristic, with the presence of the usual triggering factors [hysterectomy, radiochemotherapy and wide resection surgery – extralevatorial APR]. The therapeutic approach revealed various aspects, including plastic surgery procedures (direct closure, meshes, flaps) used in pelvic reconstruction. The accurate surgical technique applied in order to achieve oncological safety allowed for a longer survival, which favored the appearance of PE in addition to the other favoring factors. Our results underlined the clinico-pathological profile of the two subgroups, without being able to establish a correlation with the appearance and evolution of PE. However, the clinico-pathological risk factors for this condition are not yet fully defined. Therefore, reports based on the experience in the diagnosis and treatment of PE should bring valuable data, aiming to create the knowledge framework for prevention.

Evisceración de intestino delgado por periné posterior como presentación de hernia interrecto-vaginal: reporte de un caso

Introducción. El enterocele es causado por un defecto herniario del piso pélvico, siendo el más común la hernia interrecto-vaginal. Se produce por un debilitamiento del piso pélvico, por diversos factores, entre ellos, las cirugías en la región pélvica, el estreñimiento crónico o las patologías que aumentan la presión intraabdominal, el antecedente de prolapso rectal o vaginal, y también, factores congénitos. Presentación de caso. Paciente femenina de 84 años de edad, con antecedentes de un parto eutócico y múltiples procedimientos quirúrgicos, entre ellos histerectomía hace 40 años y rectosigmoidectomía por enfermedad diverticular complicada hace 6 años, quien cuatro meses antes presenta constipación crónica, que empeora en los días previos a su ingreso, con dolor perineal intenso y salida de asas intestinales a nivel de la región perineal, que la obliga a consultar a Urgencias. Al encontrarse con asas intestinales expuestas, con cambios de coloración, es intervenida quirúrgicamente con resultado satisfactorio, postquirúrgico inmediato optimo y seguimiento por consulta externa por 3 meses sin evidencia de recidiva. Discusión. La hernia interrecto-vaginal tiene una incidencia baja y una presentación clínica variada. El único tratamiento es quirúrgico.

Laparoscopic perineal hernia repair following pelvic exenteration: a case report

Background

Acquired perineal hernia is a rare complication following extensive pelvic surgery. Radiotherapy is also a predisposing factor. Perineal hernia can cause chronic perineal pain, bowel obstruction, urinary disorders and a cosmetically disfiguring defect. The treatment of perineal hernia is surgical, usually consisting of mesh repair via an abdominal or perineal approach.

Case presentation

We present a case report and a surgical video of a 42-year-old woman with history of a squamous cell carcinoma. This patient had 3 recurrences since the diagnosis and a symptomatic perineal hernia. Complete regression of the recurrent malignancy allowed us to treat the perineal hernia. We performed laparoscopic repair with prosthetic mesh in this patient who had undergone multiple surgeries and radiotherapy, while preserving the omental flap that was used to reconstruct the posterior part of the vagina.

Conclusion

There is no consensus concerning the preferred surgical approach, perineal or laparoscopic, as no study has demonstrated the superiority of either of these approaches. Laparoscopic repair for an acquired perineal hernia is safe and feasible. However, further studies including randomized trials are required to precisely evaluate the best surgical approach and type of mesh.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12893-021-01237-9.

Rare case of perforated appendicitis presenting as persistent perineal discharge following laparoscopic abdominoperinal excision of rectum (APER)

Abdominoperineal excision of rectum (APER) is one of the widely used surgical procedures to treat low rectal cancer, benign conditions like Crohn's proctitis with anal involvement and as a salvage procedure for anal cancer. Perineal wound infection is a well-recognised complication following such major surgery. Occurrence of appendicitis in a few weeks' time following such a major surgery is uncommon. However, here we present a rare case report of perforated appendicitis presenting as persistent perineal discharge in an elderly man, following laparoscopic APER for a low rectal tumour. To our knowledge, this is the first time such a rare clinical presentation of appendicitis is reported in the history of medical literature. Through this case report, we aim to highlight the importance of considering such an uncommon presentation in patients with perineal discharge, following APER.

Biologic Mesh in Surgery: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis of Selected Outcomes in 51 Studies and 6079 Patients

BACKGROUND

In recent decades, biologic mesh (BM) has become an important adjunct to surgical practice. Recent evidence-based clinical applications of BM include but are not limited to: reconstruction of abdominal wall defects; breast reconstruction; face, head and neck surgery; periodontal surgery; other hernia repairs (diaphragmatic, hiatal/paraesophageal, inguinal and perineal); hand surgery; and shoulder arthroplasty. Prior systematic reviews of BM in complex abdominal wall hernia repair had several shortcomings that our comprehensive review seeks to address, including exclusion of laparoscopic repair, assessment of risk of bias, use of an acceptable meta-analytic method and review of risk factors identified in multivariable regression analyses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We sought articles of BM for open ventral hernia repair reporting on early complications, late complications or recurrences and included minimum of 50. We used the quality in prognostic studies risk of bias assessment tool. Random effects meta-analysis was applied.

RESULTS

This comprehensive review selected 62 articles from 51 studies that included 6,079 patients. Meta-analytic pooling found that early complications are present in about 50%, surgical site occurrences (SSOs) in 37%, surgical site infections (SSIs) in 18%, reoperation in 7%, readmission in 20% and mortality in 3%. Meta-analytic estimates of late outcomes included overall complications (42%), SSOs (40%) and SSIs (22%). Specific SSOs included seroma (14%), hematoma (4%), abscess (10%), necrosis (5%), dehiscence (8%) and fistula formation (5%). Reoperation occurred in about 17%, mesh explantation in 9% and recurrence in 36%.

CONCLUSION

Estimates of nearly all outcomes from individual studies were highly heterogeneous and sensitivity analyses and meta-regressions generally failed to explain this heterogeneity. Recurrence is the only outcome for which there are consistent findings for risk factors. Bridge placement of BM is associated with higher risk of recurrence. Prior hernia repair, history of reintervention and history of mesh removal were also risk factors for increased recurrence.

Biological mesh used to repair perineal hernias following abdominoperineal resection for anorectal cancer

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine the outcome for patients who had undergone perineal hernia repair, via a perineal approach, using a biological mesh post-abdominoperineal excision (APE) for anorectal cancer.

METHOD

All consecutive patients having undergone perineal hernia repair involving an extracellular matrix of porcine small intestinal submucosa at our hospital between 2015 and 2018 were included. Follow-up clinical examinations and computed tomography scans were performed.

RESULTS

Six patients were treated surgically for symptomatic perineal hernia after a median of 31 months from APE. The median follow-up after hernia repair was 11 months (interquartile range [IQR], 6-35 months). Three patients (50%) developed a recurrent perineal hernia after a median interval of 6 months.

CONCLUSION

Perineal hernia repair using a biological mesh resulted in a high recurrence rate in patients who had undergone APE for anorectal cancer.

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.

Simultaneous stoma reinforcement and perineal reconstruction with biological mesh - A multicentre prospective observational study

Introduction

The optimal method for perineal reconstruction after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (elAPE) for low rectal cancer remains controversial. This study aimed to assess whether simultaneous perineal reconstruction and parastomal reinforcement with Strattice™ Reconstructive Tissue Matrix after elAPE could prevent hernia formation.

Methods

In this prospective, multicentre, observational, non-comparative study of consecutive patients undergoing elAPE for low rectal cancer underwent simultaneous perineal reconstruction and colostomy site reinforcement with Strattice™ mesh. All patients underwent long course chemoradiotherapy prior to surgery and had excision of the coccyx. Patients were assessed for perineal wound healing at 7 day, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months, perineal and parastomal hernia defects on clinical and radiological assessment at 1 year following surgery.

Results

19 patients (median age = 67 years, median BMI = 26, M:F = 11:8) were entered the study. 10 (52.6%) patients underwent laparoscopic elAPE. The median length of post-operative stay was 9 days. Complete wound healing was observed for 8(42%) patients at 1 month, 12(63%) at 3 months, and 19(100%) patients at 12 months. Median time for radiological and clinical assessment for hernias was 12 months. No perineal hernia was detected in 17 patients following CT assessment. Dynamic MRI was undertaken in 11 patients at 12 months and all showed no evidence of perineal hernia. 3 (16%) patients had a parastomal hernia detected radiologically. No mesh was removed during the 12 months follow up period.

Conclusion

Perineal and parastomal reconstruction with biological mesh is a feasible approach for parastomal and perineal hernia prevention after laparoscopic and open elAPE.

•

In this case series, consecutive patients underwent simultaneous perineal reconstruction and colostomy site reinforcement with Strattice™ biological mesh.

•

Simultaneous perineal and parastomal reconstruction with Strattice™ mesh is an effective method of hernia prevention after elAPE.

•

High quality prospective RCTs and national/international collaborative audits are required to compare this technique with others for perineal reconstruction.

Composite mesh and gluteal fasciocutaneous rotation flap for perineal hernia repair after abdominoperineal resection: a novel technique

Perineal hernia is an uncommon complication following abdominoperineal rectum resection. Several surgical procedures have been proposed for perineal hernia repair, including perineal, laparoscopic and abdominal approaches. Repair techniques can be classified into primary suture techniques, mesh placements and repairs with autogenous tissue. We report a 68-year-old man with a perineal hernia, who underwent a pelvic floor reconstruction with a transperineal composite mesh and a gluteal fasciocutaneous rotation flap. We conclude that a combined approach with transperineal mesh reconstruction and gluteal fasciocutaneous flap could be an alternative choice in perineal hernia repair after abdominoperineal resection.