Perineal Wound Closure Research Articles

Personalized Decisional Algorithms for Soft Tissue Defect Reconstruction after Abdominoperineal Resection for Low-Lying Rectal Cancers.

Abdominoperineal resection (APR)-the standard surgical procedure for low-lying rectal cancer (LRC)-leads to significant perineal defects, posing considerable reconstruction challenges that, in selected cases, necessitate the use of plastic surgery techniques (flaps). To develop valuable decision algorithms for choosing the appropriate surgical plan for the reconstruction of perineal defects. Our study included 245 LRC cases treated using APR. Guided by the few available publications in the field, we have designed several personalized decisional algorithms for managing perineal defects considering the following factors: preoperative radiotherapy, intraoperative position, surgical technique, perineal defect volume, and quality of tissues and perforators. The algorithms have been improved continuously during the entire period of our study based on the immediate and remote outcomes. In 239 patients following APR, the direct closing procedure was performed versus 6 cases in which we used various types of flaps for perineal reconstruction. Perineal incisional hernia occurred in 12 patients (5.02%) with direct perineal wound closure versus in none of those reconstructed using flaps. The reduced rate of postoperative complications suggests the efficiency of the proposed decisional algorithms; however, more extended studies are required to categorize them as evidence-based management guide tools.

A comparison of surgical techniques for perineal wound closure following perineal excision: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

To mitigate pelvic wound issues following perineal excision of rectal or anal cancer, a number of techniques have been suggested as an alternative to primary closure. These methods include the use of a biological/dual mesh, omentoplasty, muscle flap, and/or pelvic peritoneum closure. The aim of this network analysis was to compare all the available surgical techniques used in the attempt tomitigate issues associated with an empty pelvis. An electronic systematic search using MEDLINE databases (PubMed), EMBASE, and Web of Science was performed (Last date of research was March 15th, 2023). Studies comparing at least two of the aforementioned surgical techniques for perineal wound reconstruction during abdominoperineal resection, pelvic exenteration, or extra levator abdominoperineal excision were included. The incidence of primary healing, complication, and/or reintervention for perineal wound were evaluated. In addition, the overall incidence of perineal hernia was assessed. Forty-five observational studies and five randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion reporting on 146,398 patients. All the surgical techniques had a comparable risk ratio (RR) in terms of primary outcomes. The pooled network analysis showed a lower RR for perineal wound infection when comparing primary closure (RR 0.53; Crl 0.33, 0.89) to muscle flap. The perineal wound dehiscence RR was lower when comparing both omentoplasty (RR 0.59; Crl 0.38, 0.95) and primary closure (RR 0.58; Crl 0.46, 0.77) to muscle flap. Surgical options for perineal wound closure have evolved significantly over the last few decades. There remains no clear consensus on the "best" option, and tailoring to the individual remains a critical factor.

Short- and mid-term outcomes of abdominoperineal resection with perineal mesh insertion: a single-centre experience.

Abdominoperineal resection (APR) remains a key procedure for the treatment of low rectal/anorectal cancers. However, perineal wound closure remains challenging, particularly in extralevator abdominoperineal resection (ELAPR) due to gapped tissue planes. Different approaches have been attempted to improve perineal wound repair. The aim of this study is to report our 6-year experience in perineal wound closure utilising biological mesh. We conducted a retrospective study using data from our prospectively maintained database, including patients who underwent APR with perineal mesh closure between 2016 and 2021. 49 patients underwent APR with perineal mesh reconstruction for low rectal cancer during the 6-year period. Of these, 63% were males, with a mean age of 68 (± 11), and a mean BMI of 27.9 (± 13.7). 49% (24) of patients received neoadjuvant therapy. 88% (43) of patients underwent standard "S-APR" and only 12% (6) underwent ELAPR. Majority of procedures were laparoscopic (87.8%) with conversion rate of 6.9%. Mean length of stay was 11.7 (± 11.6). The perineal wound infection rate was 30% and only two patient required mesh removal due to entero-cutaneous perineal fistula and pelvic abscess. Perineal hernia was found in only two patients (4.1%). CRM was negative in 81.6% of the patients. Mean follow-up period was 29.2 (± 16.5) months, and disease recurrence occurred in 9 (18.3%) patients with average number of months for recurrence of21 (± 7). Overall survival during the follow-up period was 91%. Our series shows a favourable short- and medium-term outcome with routine insertion of mesh for perineal wound closure.

Purse string closure of perineal defects after abdominoperineal excision.

The aim of this study was to describe a new technique of perineal closure following abdominoperineal excision (APE) using purse-string perineal skin closure (PSPC). Between January 2016 and May 2021, 15 consecutives patients who had an APE procedure were included in this retrospective single-center study. All indications of APE were considered, as well as all types of APE. We analyzed the patient characteristics and peri-operative features, including overall (Clavien 1 to 5) and severe (Clavien 3 and 4) postoperative morbidity, length of stay (LOS), and long-term results (median time to perineal wound closure and rate of perineal incisional hernia). The patients included 11 men and four women, with a mean age of 64 ± 13 [33-80] years. The indication of APE was an epidermoid carcinoma of the anal canal (n = 5) or an adenocarcinoma of the rectum (n = 10). The mean operating time was 220 ± 88.64 [70-360] min. The overall morbidity rate was 60%, the severe morbidity rate 26%, and reoperation rate 26%. The median length of stay was 9 ± 6.5days. After a mean follow-up of 23.5 ± 20.3months, the median time to perineal wound closure was 96 ± 60days, the persistent perineal sinus rate was 6% (n = 2), and one patient developed a perineal incisional hernia. Purse-string closure of perineal wounds is a safe and effective technique for perineal wound closure after APE. The short LOS allowed an early return home.

Vertical wound closure following sacrococcygeal teratoma excision: an approachable aesthetic solution

BackgroundSacrococcygeal teratoma is a rare tumour, usually presenting in the neonatal period. The benign nature of most tumours and the high survival rates would emphasise on the importance of both cosmetic and functional outcomes.We report on our extended experience with more cases concentrating on the aesthetic outcome of vertical wound closure following excision of large irregular sacrococcygeal tumours.The study included primary cases of sacrococcygeal teratoma who were referred to our surgical team for excision. Cases of presacral tumours associated with anorectal anomalies and sacral bony defects (Currarino triad) were excluded. In all cases, we planned for a vertical midline wound closure after tumour excision. The aesthetic outcomes are evaluated concerning the vertical midline scar, buttock’s contour, and position of the anus.ResultsIn addition to twelve previously reported cases (during the period 2011 through 2016), we included another ten new consecutive cases operated during the period 2017 through 2021. Collectively, the study included 22 cases of sacrococcygeal teratoma that underwent vertical perineal wound closure after excision of the tumour. In 13 cases (those with relatively small or medium-sized tumours), the perineal wound was perfectly closed in the midline (well-hidden vertical scar in the natal cleft). For the rest of the cases (9 cases with large and/or irregular sacrococcygeal tumours), some modification was applied on the vertical linear mid-line skin closure to accommodate for skin redundancy and irregularity at the lower end of the wound, usually ending with an ‘inverted-Y’ skin closureConclusionVertical wound closure was always feasible after excision of sacrococcygeal teratomas. Even with large and irregular tumours, the vertical scar was perfectly or partially hidden within the natal cleft. Usually, there was adequate buttock development with minimal disturbance to the normal anal location within the perineum.

Outcomes of perineal wound closure techniques after abdominoperineal resections in rectal cancer: an NSQIP propensity score matched study

Perineal defects following abdominoperineal resections (APRs) for rectal cancer may require myocutaneous or omental flaps depending upon anatomic, clinical and oncologic variables. However, studies comparing their efficacy have shown contradictory results. We aim to compare postoperative complication rates of APR closure techniques in rectal cancer using propensity score-matching. The American College of Surgeons Proctectomy Targeted Data File was queried from 2016 to 2019. The study population was defined using CPT and ICD-10 codes for patients with rectal cancer undergoing APR, stratified by repair technique. Perioperative demographic and oncologic variables were controlled for by propensity-score matching. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed for wound and major complications (MCs). Of the 3291 patients included in the study, 85% underwent primary closure (PC), 8.3% rectus abdominis myocutaneous (RAM) flap, 4.9% pedicled omental flap with PC, and 1.9% lower extremity (LE) flap repair. Primary closure rates were significantly higher for patients with stage T1 and T2 tumors (p < 0.001). RAM and LE flaps were most used with multi-organ resections, 24% and 25%, respectively (p < 0.001). Similarly, cases with T4 tumors used these flaps more frequently, 30% and 40%, respectively (p < 0.001). After propensity score matching for comorbidities and oncologic variables, there was no significant difference in 30-day postoperative wound or MC rates between perineal closure techniques. The complication rates of the different closure techniques are comparable when tumor stage is considered. Therefore, tumor staging and concurrent procedures should guide clinical decision making regarding the appropriate use of each technique.

Outcomes of Perineal Wound Closure Techniques after Abdominoperineal Resections in Rectal Cancer:A NSQIP Propensity Score Matched Study

Outcomes of Perineal Wound Closure Techniques after Abdominoperineal Resections in Rectal Cancer:A NSQIP Propensity Score Matched Study

Reconstruction of oncological defects of the perianal region

In addition to the progressive development of surgical oncological techniques for malignant tumors of the rectum, anal canal and vulva, reconstructive procedures after oncological interventions in the perianal region represent acornerstone in the postoperative quality of life of patients. Modern treatment modalities for rectal cancer with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy increase the survival rate and simultaneously reduce the risk of local recurrence to 5-10%, especially by cylindrical extralevatory extirpation of the rectum. The price for increased surgical radicality and improved oncological safety is the acceptance of larger tissue defects. Simple suture closure of perineal wounds often does not primarily heal, resulting in wound dehiscence, surgical site infections and formation of chronic fistulas and sinuses. The interdisciplinary one-stage or two-stage reconstruction of the perianal region with well-vascularized tissue has proven to be a reliable procedure to prevent or control such complications.

Randomised clinical trial for the cost–utility evaluation of two strategies of perineal reconstruction after abdominoperineal resection in the context of anorectal carcinoma: biological mesh repair versus primary perineal wound closure, study protocol for the GRECCAR 9 Study

IntroductionAbdominoperineal resections performed for anorectal tumours leave a large pelvic and perineal defect causing a high rate of morbidity of the perineal wound (40%–60%). Biological meshes offer possibilities for new...

Perineal Wound Closure Following Abdominoperineal Resection and Pelvic Exenteration for Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Simple SummaryAbdominoperineal resection (APR) and pelvic exenteration (PE) for the treatment of cancer (mainly anal and rectal cancers) require extensive pelvic resection with a high rate of postoperative complications. The objective of this work was to systematically review and meta-analyze the effects of vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap (VRAMf) and mesh closure on perineal morbidity following APR and PE. The studies were distributed as follows: Group A comparing primary closure (PC) and VRAMf, Group B comparing PC and mesh closure, Group C comparing PC and VRAMf in PE. The meta-analysis of Groups A and B showed PC to be associated with an increase in the rate of total and major perineal wound complications. PC was associated with a decrease in total and major perineal complications in Group C.Background. Abdominoperineal resection (APR) and pelvic exenteration (PE) for the treatment of cancer require extensive pelvic resection with a high rate of postoperative complications. The objective of this work was to systematically review and meta-analyze the effects of vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap (VRAMf) and mesh closure on perineal morbidity following APR and PE (mainly for anal and rectal cancers). Methods. We searched PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE for eligible studies as of the year 2000. After data extraction, a meta-analysis was performed to compare perineal wound morbidity. The studies were distributed as follows: Group A comparing primary closure (PC) and VRAMf, Group B comparing PC and mesh closure, and Group C comparing PC and VRAMf in PE. Results. Our systematic review yielded 18 eligible studies involving 2180 patients (1206 primary closures, 647 flap closures, 327 mesh closures). The meta-analysis of Groups A and B showed PC to be associated with an increase in the rate of total (Group A: OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43–0.71; p < 0.01/Group B: OR 0.54, CI 0.17–1.68; p = 0.18) and major perineal wound complications (Group A: OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.35–0.68; p < 0.001/Group B: OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.12–1.17; p < 0.01). PC was associated with a decrease in total (OR 2.46, 95% CI 1.39–4.35; p < 0.01) and major (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.90–3.08; p = 0.1) perineal complications in Group C. Conclusions. Our results confirm the contribution of the VRAMf in reducing major complications in APR. Similarly, biological prostheses offer an interesting alternative in pelvic reconstruction. For PE, an adapted reconstruction must be proposed with specialized expertise.

Cumulative 5-year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Biological Mesh With Primary Perineal Wound Closure After Extralevator Abdominoperineal Resection (BIOPEX-study).

To determine long-term outcomes of a randomized trial (BIOPEX) comparing biological mesh and primary perineal closure in rectal cancer patients after extralevator abdominoperineal resection and preoperative radiotherapy, with a primary focus on symptomatic perineal hernia. BIOPEX is the only randomized trial in this field, which was negative on its primary endpoint (30-day wound healing). This was a posthoc secondary analysis of patients randomized in the BIOPEX trial to either biological mesh closure (n = 50; 2 dropouts) or primary perineal closure (n = 54; 1 dropout). Patients were followed for 5 years. Actuarial 5-year probabilities were determined by the Kaplan-Meier statistic. Actuarial 5-year symptomatic perineal hernia rates were 7% (95% CI, 0-30) after biological mesh closure versus 30% (95% CI, 10-49) after primary closure (P = 0.006). One patient (2%) in the biomesh group underwent elective perineal hernia repair, compared to 7 patients (13%) in the primary closure group (P = 0.062). Reoperations for small bowel obstruction were necessary in 1/48 patients (2%) and 5/53 patients (9%), respectively (P = 0.208). No significant differences were found for chronic perineal wound problems, locoregional recurrence, overall survival, and main domains of quality of life and functional outcome. Symptomatic perineal hernia rate at 5-year follow-up after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer was significantly lower after biological mesh closure. Biological mesh closure did not improve quality of life or functional outcomes.

Meta-analysis of biological mesh reconstruction versus primary perineal closure after abdominoperineal excision of rectal cancer.

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) of rectal cancer has been proposed to achieve better oncological outcomes. The resultant wide perineal wound, however, presents a challenge for primary closure and subsequent wound healing. This meta-analysis compared the outcomes of primary perineal closure with those of biological mesh reconstruction. The Medline and Embase search was performed for the publications comparing primary perineal closure to biological mesh reconstruction. Early perineal wound complications (seroma, infection, dehiscence) and late perineal wound complications (perineal hernia, chronic pain, and chronic sinus) were analyzed as primary endpoints. Intraoperative blood loss, operation time, and hospital stay were compared as secondary endpoints. There was no significant difference in the overall early wound complications after primary closure or biological mesh reconstruction (odds ratio (OR) of 0.575 with 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.241 to 1.373 and a P value of 0.213). The incidence of perineal hernia after 1year was significantly high after primary closure of the perineal wounds (OR of 0.400 with 95% CI of 0.240 to 0.665 and a P value of 0.001). No significant differences were observed among other early and late perineal wound complications. The operation time and hospital stay were shorter after primary perineal closure (p 0.001). A lower incidence of perineal hernia and comparable early perineal wound complications after biological mesh reconstruction show a relative superiority over primary closure. More randomized studies are required before a routine biological mesh reconstruction can be recommended for closure of perineal wounds after ELAPE.

Omentoplasty for pelvic defect closure following abdominoperineal resection in lower rectum cancer

BackgroundThe perineal wound is considered an important source of postoperative morbidity and mortality following abdominoperineal resection (APR). Complications include wound dehiscence, infection, abscess, perineal herniation, radiation enteritis, persistent sinus, more nursing effort, prolonged hospital stay, and increase readmission with cost increase.AimThe aim of this study is to compare the result of conventional closure of pelvic defect following APR versus closure with omentoplasty.Patients and methodsThis study included 30 patients who underwent APR. The patients were divided into two groups: omentoplasty group included 15 patients who underwent pelvic defect closure using pedicle omental flap, and conventional group included 15 patients who underwent surgery with conventional closure of pelvic defect.TechniqueVoluminous omental flap is harvested with proper length, with good perfusion and vascularity. Then, it is used as plug for closure of the dead space in the pelvis obtained after APR.ResultsPedicle omental flap fashioning, mobilization, and transposition supporting perineal defect following APR results in reduction of pelvic dead space and enables safe closure with reasonable operative time and reduction in postoperative wound complications.ConclusionOmentoplasty for closure of pelvic defect following APR is an applicable and safe method that supports perineal wound closure with less complications.

A new surgical approach of direct perineal wound full-thick closure for perineal wound of abdominoperineal resection for rectal carcinoma: A prospective cohort trial.

Perineal wound complications after APR have high morbidity in the colorectal surgical department. Although some approaches have been figured out to solve this clinical focus, the outcomes are still not satisfied. Herein, this prospective comparative clinical trial has been designed to evaluate a new surgical procedure of direct perineal wound full‐thick closure (DPWC), compared with conventional perineal wound closure (CPWC), with hopes of making wound healing with less complications. In addition, an evaluation of an incision negative wound pressure therapy, as another focus in this field, was also analysed in the DPWC group. A total of 44 participants in our department were recruited from March 2018 to March 2020, divided into two groups randomly, CPWC group and DPWC group. The patients' characteristics, such as age, gender, BMI, smoking, alcohol consumption, comorbidities, CEA level, and high‐risk of invasion, were recorded without statistical significance between the CPWC group and DPWC group. After the same standard abdominal phase, these two groups were performed in different perineal phases. And then, operative and postoperative outcomes were analysed with different statistical methods. Data on wound healing time and length of stay in the DPWC group were shorter than those in the CPWC group (P < .05). Furthermore, cases of wound infection within 30 days in the DPWC group were also less than that in the CPWC group (P < .05). However, no difference was found between the incisional negative pressure wound therapy assisted group (NPA group) and non‐ incisional negative pressure wound therapy assisted group (non‐NPA group). During this study, hypoalbuminemia, as an independent high‐risk factor, impacted perineal wound healing. (P = .0271) In conclusion, DPWC is a new surgical approach, which can lead to a better outcome than DPWC, and it can be another surgical procedure for clinicians. In addition, hypoalbuminemia should be interfered for avoiding perineal wound complications.

Perineal wound closure using gluteal turnover flap or primary closure after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: study protocol of a randomised controlled multicentre trial (BIOPEX-2 study)

BackgroundAbdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer is associated with high morbidity of the perineal wound, and controversy exists about the optimal closure technique. Primary perineal wound closure is still the standard of care in the Netherlands. Biological mesh closure did not improve wound healing in our previous randomised controlled trial (BIOPEX-study). It is suggested, based on meta-analysis of cohort studies, that filling of the perineal defect with well-vascularised tissue improves perineal wound healing. A gluteal turnover flap seems to be a promising method for this purpose, and with the advantage of not having a donor site scar. The aim of this study is to investigate whether a gluteal turnover flap improves the uncomplicated perineal wound healing after APR for rectal cancer.MethodsPatients with primary or recurrent rectal cancer who are planned for APR will be considered eligible in this multicentre randomised controlled trial. Exclusion criteria are total exenteration, sacral resection above S4/S5, intersphincteric APR, biological mesh closure of the pelvic floor, collagen disorders, and severe systemic diseases. A total of 160 patients will be randomised between gluteal turnover flap (experimental arm) and primary closure (control arm). The total follow-up duration is 12 months, and outcome assessors and patients will be blinded for type of perineal wound closure. The primary outcome is the percentage of uncomplicated perineal wound healing on day 30, defined as a Southampton wound score of less than two. Secondary outcomes include time to perineal wound closure, incidence of perineal hernia, the number, duration and nature of the complications, re-interventions, quality of life and urogenital function.DiscussionThe uncomplicated perineal wound healing rate is expected to increase from 65 to 85% by using the gluteal turnover flap. With proven effectiveness, a quick implementation of this relatively simple surgical technique is expected to take place.Trial registrationThe trial was retrospectively registered at Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04004650 on July 2, 2019.

Feasibility of a subcutaneous gluteal turnover flap without donor site scar for perineal closure after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer

BackgroundAbdominoperineal resection (APR) carries a high risk of perineal wound morbidity. Perineal wound closure using autologous tissue flaps has been shown to be advantageous, but there is no consensus as to the optimal method. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a novel gluteal turnover flap (GT-flap) without donor site scar for perineal closure after APR.MethodsConsecutive patients who underwent APR for primary or recurrent rectal cancer were included in a prospective non-randomised pilot study in two academic centres. Perineal reconstruction consisted of a unilateral subcutaneous GT-flap, followed by midline closure. Feasibility was defined as uncomplicated perineal wound healing at 30 days in at least five patients, and a maximum of two flap failures.ResultsOut of 17 potentially eligible patients, 10 patients underwent APR with GT-flap-assisted perineal wound closure. Seven patients had pre-operative radiotherapy. Median-added theatre time was 38 min (range 35–44 min). Two patients developed a superficial perineal wound dehiscence, most likely because of the excessive width of the skin island. Two other patients developed purulent discharge and excessive serosanguinous discharge, respectively, resulting in four complicated wounds at 30 days. No flap failure occurred, and no radiological or surgical reinterventions were performed. Median length of hospital stay was 10 days (IQR 8–12 days).ConclusionsThe GT-flap for routine perineal wound closure after APR seems feasible with limited additional theatre time, but success seems to depend on correct planning of the width of the flap. The potential for reducing perineal morbidity should be evaluated in a randomised controlled trial.

Persistent Mesorectal Inflammatory Activity is Associated With Complications After Proctectomy in Crohn's Disease.

Rectal resection in inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] is frequently complicated by disturbed perineal wound healing. Close rectal dissection, where the mesorectum remains in situ, is hypothesized to reduce complications by minimizing dead space, compared to total mesorectal excision. The aim of this study was to analyse post-operative outcomes of both techniques. In addition, immune activity in mesorectal tissue was assessed. Perineal complications and healing were retrospectively assessed in a series of 74 IBD patients undergoing proctectomy using close rectal dissection or total mesorectal excision. The mesorectums of 15 patients were analysed by fluorescence-activated cell sorting, immunofluorescence and in situ hybridization. Based on the clinical and in vitro findings, a novel surgical approach for Crohn's disease patients with disturbed perineal healing after proctectomy was developed. In Crohn's disease, perineal complications were more frequent after close rectal dissection than after total mesorectal excision [59.5% vs 17.6%; p = 0.007] with lower healing rates [51.4% vs 88.2%; p = 0.014]. No differences were observed in ulcerative colitis. The mesorectal tissue in Crohn's disease contained enhanced numbers of tumour necrosis factor α-producing CD14+ macrophages, with less expression of the wound-healing marker CD206. Based on these findings, mesorectal excision with omentoplasty was performed in eight patients with perineal complications after close rectal dissection, resulting in complete perineal wound closure in six. Pro-inflammatory characteristics remained present in the mesorectum after close rectal dissection in these patients. In Crohn's disease, close rectal dissection resulted in more perineal complications, associated with a pro-inflammatory immune status of the mesorectal tissue. Excision of this pro-inflammatory mesenteric tissue resulted in improved perineal healing rates.

Vertical Rectus Abdominis Musculocutaneous Flap Repair Improves Perineal Wound Healing after Abdominoperineal Resection for Irradiated Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

Radiotherapy (RT) and subsequent abdominoperineal resection (APR) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is associated with significant perineal wound morbidity. The aim of the present study was to investigate if vertical rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (VRAM) flap repair after APR in LARC patients improves perineal wound healing compared with direct perineal wound closure (non-VRAM). LARC patients (n=329) operated with APR between January 2006 and December 2015 after neoadjuvant RT of ≥25Gy were identified, including 260 and 69 patients in the non-VRAM and VRAM groups, respectively. Perineal wound healing was assessed 3months postoperatively, and risk factors for perineal wound complications and associations with short- and long-term outcome were analyzed. Delayed perineal wound healing after 3months was more frequent in the non-VRAM group (31.5%) compared with the VRAM group (10.4%) (p<0.01). In the non-VRAM group, 26.9% of patients developed pelvic abscess, compared with 10.1% in the VRAM group (p<0.01). Significant risk factors for perineal wound morbidity were non-VRAM (odds ratio [OR] 3.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.72-9.00; p=0.02), positive circumferential resection margin (R1; OR 3.64, 95% CI 1.91-6.93; p<0.01), pelvic abscess (OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.90-5.63; p<0.01), and short-course RT (OR 3.81, 95% CI 1.75-8.30; p<0.01). Perineal wound morbidity was not associated with impaired long-term oncologic outcome. VRAM flap reconstruction of the perineum is associated with an increased wound healing rate and may protect against pelvic abscess development. However, procedure-related long-term morbidity is incompletely studied and the procedure should be reserved for selected patients.

Biological mesh reconstruction of the pelvic floor following abdominoperineal excision for cancer: A review.

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision and pelvic exenteration are mutilating operations that leave wide perineal wounds. Such large wounds are prone to infection and perineal herniation, and their closure is a major concern to most surgeons. Different approaches to the perineal repair exist, varying from primary or mesh closure to myocutaneous flaps. Each technique has its own associated advantages and potential complications and the ideal approach is still debated. In the present study, we reviewed the current literature and our own local data regarding the use of biological mesh for perineal wound closure. Current evidence suggests that the use of biological mesh carries an acceptable risk of wound complications compared to primary closure and is similar to flap reconstruction. In addition, the rate of perineal hernia is lower in early follow-up, while long-term hernia occurrence appears to be similar between the different techniques. Finally, it is an easy and quick reconstruction method. Although more expensive than primary closure, the cost associated with the use of a biological mesh is at least equal, if not less, than flap reconstruction.

The use of a negative pressure wound management system in perineal wound closure after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for low rectal cancer.

Perineal wound healing is a significant challenge after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) due to a high rate of wound breakdown. Negative pressure therapy has proven benefits in open wounds, and recently a negative pressure system has been developed for use on closed wounds at high risk of breakdown, such as apronectomy and hysterectomy. The aim of the present study was to determine whether negative pressure therapy applied to closed perineal wounds after ELAPE improved wound healing and compare outcomes to the published literature and outcomes from a historical cohort of patients who had undergone 'standard' abdominoperineal resection (APR) and primary closure of the perineal wounds. Prospective data on consecutive patients having ELAPE in the period from November 2012 to April 2015 were collected. The pelvic floor defect was reconstructed with biologic mesh. The adipose tissue layer was closed with vicryl sutures, a suction drain was left in the deep layer, the subcuticular layer and skin were closed, and the negative pressure system was applied. Any wound breakdown within the first 30 days postoperatively was recorded. Of the 32 consecutive ELAPE patients whose perineal wounds were closed within 30days with the use of the negative pressure system, there was 1 patient with major perineal wound breakdown and 2 patients with a 1cm superficial wound defect, which needed no further treatment. In the remaining 29 (90%) patients, the perineal wounds healed fully without complications. Twenty-five patients underwent standard APR in 2010-2011 with primary closure of their perineal wounds. Ten out of 25(40%) of patients who had undergone standard APR and primary closure of perineal wounds had major wound complications (p=0.01). Our results suggest that after ELAPE the application of a negative pressure system to the perineal wound closed with biologic mesh may reduce perineal wound complications and may reduce the need for major perineal reconstruction.