Biological mesh versus primary closure for pelvic floor reconstruction following extralevator abdominoperineal excision: a meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective: To compare the morbidity of perineum-related complication between biological mesh and primary closure in closing pelvic floor defects following extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE). Methods: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wanfang database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP database, and China Biological Medicine database for published clinical researches on perineum-related complications following ELAPE between January 2007 and August 2020. Literature inclusion criteria: (1) study subjects: patients undergoing ELAPE with rectal cancers confirmed by colonoscopy pathological biopsy or surgical pathology; (2) study types: randomized controlled studies or observational studies comparing the postoperative perineum-related complications between the two groups (primary perineal closure and reconstruction with a biological mesh) following ELAPE; (3) intervention measures: biological mesh reconstruction used as the treatment group, and primary closure used as the control group; (4) outcome measures: the included literatures should at least include one of the following postoperative perineal complications: overall perineal wound complications, perineal wound infection, perineal wound dehiscence, perineal hernia, chronic sinus, chronic perineal pain (postoperative 12-month), urinary dysfunction and sexual dysfunction. Literature exclusion criteria: (1) data published repeatedly; (2) study with incomplete or wrong original data and unable to obtain original data. Two reviewers independently performed screening, data extraction and assessment on the quality of included studies. Review Manager 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis. The mobidities of perineum-related complications, including overall perineal wound (infection, dehiscence, hernia, chronic sinus) and perineal chronic pain (postoperative 12-month), were compared between the two pelvic floor reconstruction methods. Finally, publication bias was assessed, and sensitivity analysis was used to evaluate the stability of the results. Results: A total of five studies, including two randomized controlled studies and three observational controlled studies, with 650 patients (399 cases in the biological mesh group and 251 cases in primary closure group) were finally included. Compared with primary closure, biological mesh reconstruction had significantly lower ratio of perineal hernia (RR=0.37, 95%CI: 0.21-0.64, P<0.001). No significant differences in ratios of overall perineal wound complication, perineal wound infection, perineal wound dehiscence, perineal chronic sinus and perineal chronic pain (postoperative 12-month) were found between the two groups (all P>0.05). Conclusion: Compared with primary closure, pelvic floor reconstruction following ELAPE with biological mesh has the advantage of a lower incidence of perineal hernia.