scholarly journals Pelvic reconstruction after extralevator abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: is there a place for a biological mesh in perineal wound complication?

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 156-156
Author(s):  
Seung Yoon Yang ◽  
Nam Kyu Kim
2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (9) ◽  
pp. e228613
Author(s):  
Miguel Nico Albano ◽  
João Mendes Louro ◽  
Iris Brito ◽  
Sara Ramos

The abdominoperineal resection is a surgical procedure which implies the removal of rectum, anal canal and the creation of a terminal colostomy. The most frequent complications of this type of surgery are haemorrhage, surgical wound complications, persistent perineal sinus and perineal hernia. Intraoperative haemorrhage or contamination and neoadjuvant radiotherapy are risk factors for the development of perineal complications. Perineal wound infection, with subsequent healing delay, has multifactorial aetiology and its incidence can reach up to 66% according to literature. The prevention of these complications requires adequate surgical technique to avoid or minimise the known risk factors. The treatment of a perineal wound complication depends on the clinical and radiographic findings. When there is no wound resolution in 6 months, it is considered a persistent sinus and treatment will probably require a flap. Several options of surgical treatment are available however, there are no randomised studies to determine which one is the best.


2005 ◽  
Vol 71 (10) ◽  
pp. 837-840 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zuri A. Murrell ◽  
Matthew R. Dixon ◽  
Hernan Vargas ◽  
Tracey D. Arnell ◽  
Ravin Kumar ◽  
...  

The purpose of this study was to review and characterize the indications and early outcomes of abdominoperineal resection (APR) when used in a colorectal practice in an academic setting. Data was collected from the charts of all patients undergoing APR in a retrospective manner. Data collected included demographic information and details regarding the clinical presentation. Operative factors, information regarding the postoperative course, and morbidity and mortality were evaluated. Forty-four patients were treated with an APR in this practice between the years 1992 and 2004. The indications for operation were primary rectal cancer (n = 31), recurrent rectal cancer (n = 6), intractable Crohn disease (n = 3), anal melanoma (n = 1), cloacogenic cancer (n = 1), squamous cell cancer (n = 1), and gastrointestinal stromal tumor (n = 1). Complications in the first 60 days affected 14 patients (32%). The most common complication was intra-abdominal/pelvic abscess formation occurring in 6 of these 14 patients (43%). Additional complications in the first 60 days included rectus flap necrosis, perineal wound evisceration, prolonged ileus, and urinary retention. There was no surgical mortality. Long-term complications occurred in 7 patients (16%), with parastomal hernia being the most common (43%). Although relatively infrequently used, APR will continue to play a role for selected patients in the future. Despite the significant morbidity associated with this surgery, APR may provide beneficial treatment for select cases of low rectal cancer, end-stage inflammatory bowel disease, and anal malignancies.


2015 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. e18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Bobkiewicz ◽  
Tomasz Banasiewicz ◽  
Lukasz Krokowicz ◽  
Jacek Paszkowski ◽  
Jacek Hermann ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 94 (3) ◽  
pp. 173-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
N Dabbas ◽  
K Adams ◽  
H Chave ◽  
G Branagan

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.


2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (9) ◽  
pp. 1151-1157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gijsbert D. Musters ◽  
Didi A. M. Sloothaak ◽  
Sapho Roodbeen ◽  
Anna A. W. van Geloven ◽  
Willem A. Bemelman ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
S. Sharabiany ◽  
J. J. W. van Dam ◽  
S. Sparenberg ◽  
R. D. Blok ◽  
B. Singh ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to compare perineal wound healing between gluteal turnover flap and primary closure in patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer. Methods Patients who underwent APR for primary or recurrent rectal cancer with gluteal turnover flap in two university hospitals (2016–2021) were compared to a multicentre cohort of primary closure (2000–2017). The primary endpoint was uncomplicated perineal wound healing within 30 days. Secondary endpoints were long-term wound healing, related re-interventions, and perineal herniation. The perineal hernia rate was assessed using Kaplan Meier analysis. Results Twenty–five patients had a gluteal turnover flap and 194 had primary closure. The uncomplicated perineal wound-healing rate within 30 days was 68% (17/25) after gluteal turnover flap versus 64% (124/194) after primary closure, OR 2.246; 95% CI 0.734–6.876; p = 0.156 in multivariable analysis. No major wound complications requiring surgical re-intervention occurred after flap closure. Eighteen patients with gluteal turnover flap completed 12-month follow-up, and none of them had chronic perineal sinus, compared to 6% (11/173) after primary closure (p = 0.604). The symptomatic 18-month perineal hernia rate after flap closure was 0%, compared to 9% after primary closure (p = 0.184). Conclusions The uncomplicated perineal wound-healing rate after the gluteal turnover flap and primary closure after APR is similar, and no chronic perineal sinus or perineal hernia occurred after flap closure. Future studies have to confirm potential benefits of the gluteal turnover flap.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document