Choice of specimen's extraction site affects wound morbidity in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: The choice for an ideal site of specimen extraction following laparoscopic colorectal surgery remains debatable. However, midline incision (MI) is usually employed for right and left-sided colonic resections while left iliac fossa or suprapubic transverse incision (STI) were reserved for sigmoid and rectal cancer resections. OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) and incisional hernia (IH) in elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cancer and specimen extraction via MI or STI. METHOD: Prospectively collected data of elective laparoscopic colorectal cancer resections between January 2017 and December 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. MI was employed for right and left-sided colonic resections while STI was used for sigmoid and rectal resections. SSI is defined according to the US CDC criteria. IH was diagnosed clinically and confirmed by CT scan at 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients underwent elective laparoscopic colorectal resections. MI was used in 90 patients while 78 patients had STI as an extraction site. Demographic and preoperative data is similar for two groups. The rate of IH was 13.3% for MI and 0% in the STI (p = 0.001). SSI was seen in 16.7% of MI vs 11.5% of STI (p = 0.34). Univariate and multivariate analysis showed that the choice of extraction site is associated with statistically significant higher incisional hernia rate. CONCLUSION: MI for specimen extraction is associated with higher incidence of both SSI and IH. The choice of incision for extraction site is an independent predicative factor for significantly higher IH and increased SSI rates.

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

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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 1 year 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). CONCLUSION: 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.