After Abdominoperineal Excision Research Articles

Summary of experience with patterning cropped and shaped mesh repair for perineal hernia after abdominoperineal excision in rectal cancer

Objective: To examine the patterning cropped and shaped mesh repair for perineal hernia after abdominoperineal excision (APE) in rectal cancer. Methods: The clinical data of 8 patients with perineal hernia after APE who accepted surgical treatment in the Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Hernia Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University from March 2017 to December 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. There were 3 males and 5 females, aged (67.6±7.2) years (range: 56 to 76 years). Eight patients developed a perineal mass at (11.3±2.9) months (range: 5 to 13 months) after APE. After surgical separation of adhesion and exposing the pelvic floor defect, a 15 cm×20 cm anti-adhesion mesh was fashioned as a three-dimensional pocket shape to fit the pelvic defect, then fixed to the promontory or sacrum and sutured to the pelvic sidewalls and the anterior peritoneum, while two side slender slings were tailored in front of the mesh and fixed on the pectineal ligament. Results: The repair of their perineal hernias went well, with an operating time of (240.6±48.8) minutes (range: 155 to 300 minutes). Five patients underwent laparotomy, 3 patients tried laparoscopic surgery first and then transferred to laparotomy combined with the perineal approach. Intraoperative bowel injury was observed in 3 patients. All patients did not have an intestinal fistula, bleeding occurred. No reoperation was performed and their preoperative symptoms improved significantly. The postoperative hospital stay was (13.5±2.9) days (range: 7 to 17 days) and two patients had postoperative ileus, which improved after conservative treatment. Two patients had a postoperative perineal hernia sac effusion, one of them underwent placement of a tube to puncture the hernia sac effusion due to infection, and continued irrigation and drainage. The postoperative follow-up was (34.8±14.0) months (range: 13 to 48 months), and 1 patient developed recurrence in the seventh postoperative month, no further surgery was performed. Conclusions: Surgical repair of the perineal hernia after APE can be preferred transabdominal approach, routine application of laparoscopy is not recommended, combined abdominoperineal approach can be considered if necessary. The perineal hernia after APE can be repaired safely and effectively using the described technique of patterning cropped and shaped mesh repair.

Central perforated VRAM flap and neurostimulated levator augmentation for functional and aesthetical reconstruction after abdominoperineal excision in cancer.

Preservation of quality of life regarding fecal continence after abdominoperineal excision (APE) in cancer is challenging. Simultaneous soft tissue coverage and restoration of continence mechanism can be provided through an interdisciplinary collaboration of colorectal and plastic reconstructive surgery. Evaluation of surgical procedure and outcome combining soft tissue reconstruction using a central perforated vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap (VRAM), implementing a perineostoma and restoring anorectal angle augmenting the levator ani by neurostimulated graciloplasty. 14 Patients underwent APE due to cancer. In all patients coverage was achieved by pedicled VRAM and simultaneous pull-through descendostomy (perineostoma). 10 of those patients received a levator augmentation additionally. Postoperative complications, functional measures of continence as well as quality of life were obtained. Perineal minor complication rate was 43% without need of surgical intervention. All but one VRAM survived. Continence measures and disease specific life quality showed a good preservation of continence in most patients. The results present a complex therapy option accomplished by a collaboration of two highly specialized partners (visceral and plastic surgery) after total loss of the sphincter function and consecutive fecal insufficiency after APE.

Vaginal reconstruction using a gluteal transposition flap after abdominoperineal excision for anorectal malignancy

The purpose of this study is to present and evaluate a surgical method using gluteal flap for combined perineal and vaginal reconstruction after abdominoperineal excision (APE) with partial vaginectomy for anorectal malignancy. The method is a two-centre study of consecutive patients undergoing APE including partial vaginectomy for anorectal tumours, with immediate combined perineal and vaginal reconstruction using gluteal flaps. Follow-up data were retrieved via retrospective review of medical records, questionnaires and gynaecological examinations. Some 34 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. At the time of follow-up, 14 (78%) of the 18 patients alive responded to questionnaires. Seven (50%) of the survey responders agreed to undergo gynaecological examination. Major flap-specific complications (Clavien–Dindo > 2) were observed in 3 (9%) patients. Among survey responders, 11 (79%) had been sexually active preoperatively of which five (45%) resumed sexual activity postoperatively and three (27%) resumed vaginal intercourse. These three patients had all implemented an active vaginal health promotion strategy postoperatively. Perineo-vaginal reconstruction using gluteal flap after extended APE for anorectal malignancy is feasible. Although comparable to other methods of reconstruction, the rate of perineo-vaginal complications is high and post-operative sexual dysfunction is substantial. Postoperative strategies for vaginal health promotion may improve sexual function after vaginal reconstruction.

Immediate vaginal and perineal reconstruction after abdominoperineal excision using the Inferior Gluteal Artery Perforator Flap (V-IGAP)

The fasciocutaneous inferior gluteal artery perforator (IGAP) has been previously demonstrated to be a robust reconstructive choice after abdominoperineal excision (APE), with comparably low morbidity relative to other flaps. In patients who undergo concurrent vaginectomy, we demonstrate in this retrospective cohort study how IGAP modification allows simultaneous vaginal reconstruction with a favourable complication profile and long-term return to sexual activity. Oncological resection was completed with the patient prone. Unilateral or bilateral IGAP flaps may be used based on vaginal defect size and surgeon preference. In this study, important features of flap design, mobilisation and inset are presented, together with a retrospective cohort study of all cases who underwent vaginal reconstruction. Clinical outcomes were determined by the length of stay, early to late complications, and quality of life assessment including a return to sexual function. Over a 10-year period, 207 patients underwent abdominoperineal resection (APE) in our cross-centre study (86% subject to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy), with 22/84 female patients electing for vaginal reconstruction (19 partial, 3 total vaginectomies). Minor complications were observed in 6/22 cases, with two patients progressing to healing after-theatre debridement (major). The median follow-up time was 410 days. Quality of life questionnaires reported high patient satisfaction, with 70% of patients returning to sexual activity. For patients undergoing APE with concurrent vaginectomy, the IGAP flap can be used alone for both perineal dead space management and neovaginal reconstruction, negating the need for an alternative second flap and avoiding significant donor morbidity. This study shows excellent long-term clinical outcomes, including a return to sexual activity.

CME Accreditation Page

Local recurrences are more common after abdominoperineal excision (APE) than after anterior resection of rectal cancer. Extralevator APE was introduced to address this problem. The post anal minimally invasive approach had been used by other authors for transperineal mesh rectopexy but not in cancer management. Our aim is to use the post-anal minimally invasive approach for better visualization and division of the levator Ani during the Extralevator abdominoprineal excision in 2 cases of carcinoma of the anal canal. After laparoscopic exploration of the abdomen and performing a laparoscopic nerve sparing TME down to the levator ani from the abdominal side, the perineal phase was started by a purse string suture followed by a postanal incision and division of the Anococcygeal ligament, the gel port was inserted where visualization of the levator ani allows its division under vision posteriorly and laterally in order to achieve a good circumferential resection margin in the studied 2 cases. Good circumferential resection margin was reported pathologically and photographed in one of them. Postanal minimally invasive PAMIS assisted technique facilitates the extralevator abdominoperineal “ELAPE” in supine position. However a large multicenter trial comparing this new assisted technique with the traditional ELAPE id needed for a final conclusion.

Colocolic intussusception

Local recurrences are more common after abdominoperineal excision (APE) than after anterior resection of rectal cancer. Extralevator APE was introduced to address this problem. The post anal minimally invasive approach had been used by other authors for transperineal mesh rectopexy but not in cancer management. Our aim is to use the post-anal minimally invasive approach for better visualization and division of the levator Ani during the Extralevator abdominoprineal excision in 2 cases of carcinoma of the anal canal. After laparoscopic exploration of the abdomen and performing a laparoscopic nerve sparing TME down to the levator ani from the abdominal side, the perineal phase was started by a purse string suture followed by a postanal incision and division of the Anococcygeal ligament, the gel port was inserted where visualization of the levator ani allows its division under vision posteriorly and laterally in order to achieve a good circumferential resection margin in the studied 2 cases. Good circumferential resection margin was reported pathologically and photographed in one of them. Postanal minimally invasive PAMIS assisted technique facilitates the extralevator abdominoperineal “ELAPE” in supine position. However a large multicenter trial comparing this new assisted technique with the traditional ELAPE id needed for a final conclusion.

Abdominoperineal Excision: Technical Challenges in Optimal Surgical and Oncological Outcomes after Abdominoperineal Excision for Rectal Cancer.

Treatment results in rectal cancer have improved significantly during the recent two decades, but local control and survival after abdominoperineal excision (APE) have not improved to the same degree as that seen after anterior resection (AR). The reason for this is an increased risk of inadvertent bowel perforations and tumor involved margins after APE as compared with AR. The conventional synchronous combined APE has not been a standardized procedure and consequently oncological outcomes have varied considerably between different institutions and in different reports. With the new concept of APE, based on well-defined anatomical structures, the procedure can be categorized as intersphincteric APE, extralevator APE, and ischioanal APE. This article discusses the technical aspects and results from this approach.

Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision for Low Rectal Cancer--Extensive Surgery to Be Used With Discretion Based on 3-Year Local Recurrence Results: A Registry-based, Observational National Cohort Study.

Objectives:The aim of this prospective registry-based population study was to investigate the efficacy of extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) regarding local recurrence rates within 3 years after surgery.Background:Local recurrence of rectal cancer is more common after abdominoperineal excision (APE) than after anterior resection. Extralevator abdominoperineal excision was introduced to address this problem. No large-scale studies with long-term oncological outcomes have been published.Methods:All Swedish patients operated on with an APE and registered in the Swedish ColoRectal Cancer Registry 2007 to 2009 were included (n = 1397) and analyzed with emphasis on the perineal part of the operation. Local recurrence at 3 years was collected from the registry.Results:The local recurrence rates at 3 years [median follow-up, 3.43 years (APE, 3.37 years; ELAPE, 3.41 years; not stated: 3.43 years)] were significantly higher for ELAPE compared with APE (relative risk, 4.91). Perioperative perforation was also associated with an increased risk of local recurrence (relative risk, 3.62). There was no difference in 3-year overall survival between APE and ELAPE. In the subgroup of patients with very low tumors (≤4 cm from the anal verge), no significant difference in the local recurrence rate could be observed.Conclusions:Extralevator abdominoperineal excision results in a significantly increased 3-year local recurrence rate as compared with standard APE. Intraoperative perforation seems to be an important risk factor for local recurrence. In addition to significantly increased 3-year local recurrence rates, the significantly increased incidence of wound complications leads to the conclusion that ELAPE should only be considered in selected patients at risk of intraoperative perforation.

Laparoscopic repair of perineal hernia after abdominoperineal excision.

Perineal hernia is a challenging complication after abdominoperineal excision (APE) of the rectum. Surgical repair can be accomplished using challenging abdominal or transperineal approaches. A laparoscopic repair using a Proceed mesh might be an easy and effective alternative. We describe a multi-center case-series of twelve patients with a symptomatic perineal hernia treated by laparoscopic mesh repair. A cone-shaped 10×15cm Proceed Mesh was tacked to the promontory or sacrum and sutured to the pelvic sidewalls and the anterior peritoneum. Twelve patients underwent laparoscopic repair of their perineal hernia. Four men and eight women presented with a symptomatic perineal hernia after abdominoperineal excision between 2008 and 2013 and underwent a laparoscopic repair with a Proceed mesh. The median age at presentation was 53years (range 39-68years). The mean total theater time was 119min (range 75-200min). No conversion to an open procedure was needed. No early complications where seen. The mean hospital stay was 2.25days (range 1-4days). Three patients showed recurrence, of whom two had a defect in the middle of the proceed mesh, one had a defect anterior to the previous perineal hernia. All 3 patients underwent a redo-laparoscopic repair with mesh. In this case series we present an alternative approach for the surgical repair of perineal hernias. Based on our experience, perineal hernia after APE can be repaired safely and effectively using the described laparoscopic technique.

Persistent perineal morbidity is common following abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer.

PurposeShort-term complications related to the perineal wound after abdominoperineal excision (APE) are a well-known problem. Perineal morbidity in the longer term is an almost unexplored area. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to investigate the prevalence of perineal symptoms 3 years after APE for rectal cancer, to identify potential risk factors and to explore the relationship between perineal morbidity and global quality of life.MethodAll patients who underwent APE in Sweden between 2007 and 2009 (n = 1373) were identified through the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry. Surviving patients were contacted 3 years after surgery and asked about participation. A total of 545 patients completed a detailed questionnaire. Clinical data was collected from the registry and surgical charts.ResultsPerineal symptoms occurred in 50 % of all patients 3 years after APE and more frequently in women (58 vs. 44 %; p = 0.001). Delayed healing of the perineal wound (>4 weeks) occurred in 25 % of all patients and more frequently after extralevator APE (ELAPE) than after conventional APE (32 vs. 11 %, p < 0.001). Delayed healing was associated with an increased risk of more severe perineal symptoms (relative risk (RR) 1.50, 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) 1.09–2.05). Patients with more severe perineal symptoms (n = 129) had a significantly lower global quality of life as measured by EQ-5D visual analogue scale (VAS; median 75 vs. 83 points on the 100-point scale; p < 0.001).ConclusionPersistent perineal symptoms are common after APE and may have an impact on patients’ quality of life. Delayed wound healing may be a risk factor for persistent symptoms. Further studies are needed to identify avoidable clinical factors for the development of persistent perineal morbidity.ClinicalTrials.gov IdentifierNCT01296984

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for rectal cancer--short-term results from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry. Selective use of ELAPE warranted.

PurposeLocal recurrences are more common after abdominoperineal excision (APE) than after anterior resection of rectal cancer. Extralevator APE was introduced to address this problem. This prospective registry-based population study aims to investigate the efficacy of extralevator APE (ELAPE) in improving short-term oncological outcome.MethodsAll Swedish patients operated with any kind of abdominoperineal excision and registered in the Swedish Rectal Cancer Registry 2007–2009 were included (n = 1,397) and analyzed with emphasis on the perineal part of the operation. Short-term perioperative and oncological results were collected from the registry.ResultsExtralevator APE did not result in fewer intraoperative perforations or involved circumferential resection margins as compared to standard APE for the entire group. Intraoperative perforations were significantly fewer for patients with low tumours (≤4 cm) (ELAPE: n = 28/386 versus APE: n = 9/58) (p = 0.043) and for early (T0–T2) T-stages (ELAPE: n = 3/172 versus APE: n = 6/75) (p = 0.025). There were significantly more post-operative wound infections for ELAPE than for APE (n = 106 (20.4 %) versus n = 25 (12.0 %), p = 0.011).ConclusionsThe short-term results indicate that selective use of extralevator APE can be warranted, for example, for subgroups with low tumours. In conclusion, selective use of the extralevator APE is advocated as not all patients seem to benefit from the technique, and there are significantly more short-term complications after extralevator APE.

Phantom rectum following abdominoperineal excision for rectal neoplasm: appearance and disappearance

The sensation that the rectum remains or is functioning after abdominoperineal excision (APE) is called phantom rectum (PR). Its postoperative and long-term morbidity are not well documented. Informed consent may not include the risk and consequences of this condition. We assessed the incidence and morbidity of PR after APE and compared those with vs those without vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flaps. Patients who underwent APE between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2008 were identified. Preoperative radiation and operative reconstruction by vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) flaps were noted. Patients were interviewed by telephone to assess the presence and timing of PR symptoms and their effect on quality of life. Thirty-six of 80 patients who underwent APE were available for follow-up. Twenty-three (64%) described PR symptoms including urgency to evacuate [22 (61%)], sensation of faeces in the rectum [19 (52%)] and sensation of passing flatus [17 (48%)]. Eleven (47%) who had VRAM vs 25 who did not, reported having symptoms of PR at < 3 months after APE. Patients described their symptoms as 'unchanged over time' [20 (56%)], 'gradually decreasing and ultimately disappearing' [13 (35%)] or 'worsening' [3 (9%)]. Preoperative radiation and laparoscopic approach were not associated with PR symptoms. Significantly more patients having a VRAM flap reported early PR symptoms [7/11 (64%) vs 4/25 (16%)] (P = 0.008). PR sensations were experienced by 23 (64%) patients who underwent APE for rectal cancer. VRAM reconstruction was associated with early PR presentation. The possibility of PR should be discussed preoperatively in patients undergoing APE for anorectal neoplasm.

A pictorial description of extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision in the prone position has been reported as a method to improve the poor outcome sometimes observed after abdominoperineal excision (APE) for low rectal cancer. In this paper a pictorial guide is presented describing the key anatomical steps and landmarks of the operation. Intraoperative footage of five APE operations filmed in high definition was reviewed and key stages of the operation were identified. Still frames were captured from these sequences to illustrate this guide. An edited video sequence was produced from one of these operations to accompany this paper. The prone APE allows improved visualization of the perineal portion of the operation by the surgeon, assistants and observers. It permits clear demonstration for teaching. Prospective evaluation is still required to identify patients who would benefit from extralevator APE.

Perineal hernia repair after abdominoperineal resection: a pooled analysis

The purpose of this study was to determine treatment characteristics and clinical outcome for patients with perineal hernia after abdominoperineal excision (APE). A systematic search of the literature revealed 40 individually documented patients, published between 1944 and 2010. Three additional patients treated at our centre were added. Patient characteristics, type of repair and outcome were entered into a database and a pooled analysis of these 43 patients was performed. The pooled analysis revealed a median time interval of 8 months between APE and surgical repair of perineal hernia. The surgical approaches were perineal in 22 patients, open abdominal in 11, open abdominoperineal in three, laparoscopic in five and laparoscopic-perineal in two patients. A primary recurrence was documented in 13 patients and a second recurrence in three. The recurrence rate was 5/25 for synthetic or biological mesh, 6/12 for primary closure and 2/6 for the remaining techniques. Recurrent perineal hernia was repaired using a synthetic or biological mesh (n = 6), primary closure (n = 5) or a muscle flap (gluteus or gracilis; n = 4). From these limited and biased data based on published case descriptions, it appears that the recurrence rate of primary perineal hernia repair after APE is lower with the use of a mesh or other assisted closure than with primary suture repair.

Focus on Extralevator Perineal Dissection in Supine Position for Low Rectal Cancer Has Led to Better Quality of Surgery and Oncologic Outcome

After abdominoperineal excision (APE), the presence of tumor cells in the circumferential resection margin (R1) and iatrogenic tumor perforations are still frequent and result in an increased rate of local recurrences. In this study, a standardized supine APE with an increased focus on the perineal dissection (sPPD) is compared to the customary supine APE. From 2000 to 2010, a total of 246 patients underwent APE for rectal cancer (sPPD and customary supine APE). All patients were staged with preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and received neoadjuvant treatment (n = 203) when margins were involved or threatened (cT3 + and T4). As a result of a quality improvement program in 2006, the surgical technique was modified: it became standardized, emphasis was placed on the perineal dissection, and pelvic dissection was limited to avoid false routes when following the total mesorectal excision planes deep into the pelvis. Overall, the percentage of involved circumferential resection margins (CRMs) was 10%. In the period before introducing sPPD, the R1 percentages for cT0-3 and cT4 tumors were 6.8 and 30.2%, compared to 2.2 and 5.7% after introduction of sPPD (P = 0.001). Risk factors for R1 resection were preoperative T4 tumors (14.9%, P = 0.011), tumor perforation (33.3%, P = 0.002), fistulating tumors (35.7%, P = 0.002), mucus-producing tumors (23.1%, P = 0.006), or bulky tumors (66.7%, P < 0.001). The objective of surgical treatment of low rectal cancer is to obtain negative resection margins and subsequently reduce the risk of local recurrence. A combination of the appropriate preoperative treatment and standardized surgical technique such as sPPD can achieve this goal.

Myocutaneous flap reconstruction of the pelvis after abdominoperineal excision

Perineal wound complications after abdominoperineal excision (APE) for anorectal cancer represent a considerable source of morbidity for patients. Strategies to improve wound healing include reconstruction with myocutaneous flaps. This is an evidence-based review of reconstruction of pelvic defects after APE, using rectus abdominus (RAM), gracilis and gluteus maximus flaps. A Pubmed search was performed using MESH headings. Thirty-six studies reported outcomes of interest. Five controlled studies reported improved outcomes after APE and chemoradiotherapy with RAM reconstruction and two controlled studies reported improved outcomes with gracilis reconstruction. There were seven patients with total flap loss after RAM reconstruction, in a combined 300 patients. There were eight patients with complete cutaneous necrosis after gracilis reconstruction in a combined 83 patients. Data from the controlled studies support the use of myocutaneous flaps for single-stage reconstruction after APE in the presence of chemoradiotherapy. Ultimately, the choice of flap depends on the goals of reconstruction, size of the defect and the availability of donor tissue. The implications of an expanding role for radiotherapy in the treatment of low rectal cancer and radical dissection to achieve negative circumferential margins, necessitate close co-operation between colorectal and reconstructive surgeons to achieve APE with reduced wound morbidity.