Pelvic floor reconstruction with a biological mesh after extralevator abdominoperineal excision leads to few perineal hernias and acceptable wound complication rates with minor movement limitations: single-centre experience including clinical examination

Background. Extralevator abdominoperineal excision is associated with a high incidence of perineal wound complications. There is no uniform standard for choosing the method for pelvic floor reconstruction after extralevator abdominoperineal excision.The purpose of the study was to compare the results of extralevator abdominoperineal excisions of the rectum using various methods of perineal wound closure.Materials and Methods. Between 2014 and 2018, 120 patients underwent extralevator abdominoperineal excisions of the rectum using various options for closure of the pelvic floor. The patients were divided into 3 groups. Group I patients (n=64) underwent simple plasty of the peritoneal wound. Group II patients (n=43) underwent myoplasty using the gluteus maximus muscle. Group III patients (n=13) underwent myoplasty using the rectus abdominis muscle. The incidence of perineal wound complications in the early postoperative period was assessed.Results. The total number of perineal wound complications in Group I, II and III was 33 (51.5 %), 13 (30.2 %), and 6 (46.1 %), respectively. Grade IIIA-IIIB complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification were observed in 25 % of Group I patients, in 18.6 % of Group II patients and in 7.7 % of Group II patients. Postoperative perineal wound complications occurred more often in Group I patients after simple plasty than in Group II and III patients after myoplasty (51.5 % versus 30.2 %). However, perineal wound complications were observed more often in Group III than in Group II (46.1 % versus 30.2 %, respectively). No significant differences in the frequency of complications between 3 groups were found.Conclusion. Using various options for closure of the pelvic floor after extralevator abdominoperineal excisions of the rectum, there was a tendency to reduction in the incidence of grade IIIA-IIIB perineal wound complications.

Download Full-text

Perineal Wound Closure Using Biological Mesh Following Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision

Digestive Surgery ◽

10.1159/000489134 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 36 (4) ◽

pp. 281-288 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Naseer Baloch ◽

Per J. Nilsson ◽

Caroline Nordenvall ◽

Mirna Abraham-Nordling

Keyword(s):

Wound Closure ◽

Perineal Wound ◽

Abdominoperineal Excision ◽

Biological Mesh ◽

Single Centre ◽

Short Term ◽

Perineal Reconstruction ◽

Primary Rectal Cancer ◽

Different Types ◽

Electronic Hospital

Aims: This study aimed to describe the short-term perineal healing rates in patients with perineal reconstruction using a biological mesh following extralevator abdominoperineal excision (elAPE). Methods: In a retrospective, descriptive single-centre cohort study, 88 consecutive patients treated with elAPE and perineal closure using a biological mesh between January 2011 and December 2015 were reviewed. All available data from electronic hospital records was collected. Patients were followed for 1 year following surgery and perineal wound status assessed at 3 months and at 1 year. Results: In total, 63 patients were male and all but 8 patients were treated for primary rectal cancer. All patients but 3 had received radiotherapy prior to surgery. Multivisceral excisions were performed in 19 patients. Omentoplasty was performed in 55 patients and 3 different types of meshes were used during the study period. At 3 months, 58 patients (66%) had a healed perineum. No association was detected between patient, tumour or perioperative characteristics and perineal wound status at 3 months. At 1 year, 4 patients were deceased and among the remaining 84, the perineal wound was healed in 77 patients (92%). Conclusion: The use of biological meshes in perineal reconstruction following elAPE is feasible and safe, and the perineal wound is healed in the majority of the patients within 3 months.

Download Full-text

Pelvic floor reconstruction with bilateral gracilis flaps following extralevator abdominoperineal excision - a video vignette

Colorectal Disease ◽

10.1111/codi.13933 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 19 (12) ◽

pp. 1120-1121 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

C. S. Jones ◽

J. Nowers ◽

N. J. Smart ◽

J. Coelho ◽

A. Watts ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Pelvic Floor ◽

Abdominoperineal Excision ◽

Pelvic Floor Reconstruction ◽

Video Vignette

Download Full-text

Current practice in abdominoperineal resection: an email survey of the membership of the Association of Coloproctology

Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England ◽

10.1308/003588412x13171221589973 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 94 (3) ◽

pp. 173-176 ◽

Cited By ~ 11

Author(s):

N Dabbas ◽

K Adams ◽

H Chave ◽

G Branagan

Keyword(s):

Significant Proportion ◽

Patient Positioning ◽

Perineal Wound ◽

Wound Complication ◽

Training Programme ◽

Abdominoperineal Excision ◽

Complication Rates ◽

Oncological Outcomes ◽

Perineal Wound Complication ◽

National Training

INTRODUCTION This study aimed to gain insight into current preferences for type of surgical approach and patient positioning in abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (APER), to identify whether these factors affect self-reported oncological outcomes and complication rates, and to assess the opinions of members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) with regards to the benefit of a national training programme for APER surgery. METHODS Members of the ACPGBI were surveyed using a questionnaire designed to examine surgeon/departmental demographics, type of APER practised, audit of results and complications, opinions regarding extralevator APER (ELAPER) and opinions regarding the potential benefit of a national training programme. RESULTS According to the survey, 62% of surgeons perform perineal dissection in the supine position and 57% perform a standard APER technique. Surgeons who only practise colorectal surgery (p=0.002) and surgeons performing prone dissection (/xO.0001) are more likely to perform ELAPER. Three-quarters (76%) audit their results for perineal wound complication rates. Over 80% audit their oncological outcomes. The vast majority (94.6%) of those who perform ELAPER believe there is a benefit to this method while 59.6% of those who do not perform ELAPER still believe there is a benefit to ELAPER. Only 50% feel that there should be a national training programme. CONCLUSIONS There is a distinct discordance with regards to the APER technique. Among UK colorectal surgeons, although a significant proportion favours ELAPER, there remains a larger proportion still performing standard APER techniques.

Download Full-text