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

BACKGROUND: 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 to mitigate issues associated with an empty pelvis. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Pelvic floor reconstruction by modified rectus abdominis myoperitoneal (MRAM) flap after pelvic exenterations.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the technique and report experiences with pelvic floor reconstruction by modified rectus abdominis myoperitoneal (MRAM) flap after extensive pelvic procedures. METHODS: Surgical technique of MRAM harvest and transposition is carefully described. The patients in whom pelvic floor reconstruction with MRAM after either infralevator pelvic exenteration and/or extended lateral pelvic sidewall excision was carried out were enrolled into the study (MRAM group, n=16). Surgical data, post-operative morbidity, and disease status were retrospectively assessed. The results were compared with a historical cohort of patients, in whom an exenterative procedure without pelvic floor reconstruction was performed at the same institution (control group, n=24). RESULTS: Both groups were balanced in age, BMI, tumor types, and previous treatment. Substantially less patients from the MRAM group required reoperation within 60days of the surgery (25% vs. 50%) which was due to much lower rate of complications potentially related to empty pelvis syndrome (1 vs. 7 reoperations) (p=0.114). Late post-operative complication rate was substantially lower in the MRAM group (any grade: 79% vs. 44%; grade≥3: 37% vs. 6%) (p=0.041). The performance status 6months after the surgery was ≤1 in the majority of patients in MRAM (81%) while in only 38% of patients from the control group (p=0.027). There was one incisional hernia in MRAM group while three cases were reported in the controls. CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic floor reconstruction by MRAM in patients after pelvic exenterative procedures is associated with a substantial decrease in postoperative complications that are potentially related to empty pelvis syndrome.