Exploring the impact of urogenital organ displacement after abdominoperineal resection on urinary and sexual function.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to establish the functional impact of displacement of urogenital organs after abdominoperineal resection (APR) using validated questionnaires. METHODS: Patients who underwent APR for primary or recurrent rectal cancer (2001-2018) with evaluable pre- and postoperative radiological imaging and completed urinary (UDI-6, IIQ-7) and sexual questionnaires (male, IIEF; female, FSFI, FSDS-R) were included from 16 centers. Absolute displacement of the internal urethral orifice, posterior bladder wall, distal end of the prostatic urethra, and cervix were correlated to urogenital function by calculating Spearman's Rho (ρ). Median function scores were compared between minimal or substantial displacement using median split. RESULTS: There were 89 male and 36 female patients included, of whom 45 and 19 were sexually active after surgery. Absolute displacement of the internal urethral orifice and posterior bladder wall was not correlated with UDI-6 in men (ρ = 0.119 and ρ = 0.022) nor in women (ρ = - 0.098 and ρ = - 0.154). In men with minimal and substantial displacement of the internal urethral orifice, median UDI-6 scores were 10 (IQR 0-22) and 17 (IQR 5-21), respectively, with corresponding scores of 25 (IQR 10-46) and 21 (IQR 16-36) in women. Displacement of the cervix and FSDS-R were correlated (ρ = 0.433) in sexually active patients. CONCLUSION: This first analysis on functional impact of urogenital organ displacement after APR suggests that more displacement of the cervix might be associated with worse sexual function, while the data does not indicate any potential functional impact of bladder displacement. Studies are needed to further explore this underexposed topic.

Mesh, flap or combined repair of perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: The aim of this systematic review was to analyse recurrence rates after different surgical techniques for perineal hernia repair. METHOD: All original studies (n ≥ 2 patients) reporting recurrence rates after perineal hernia repair after abdominoperineal resection (APR) were included. The electronic database PubMed was last searched in December 2021. The primary outcome was recurrent perineal hernia. A weighted average of the logit proportions was determined by the use of the generic inverse variance method and random effects model. RESULTS: A total of 19 studies involving 172 patients were included. The mean age of patients was 64 ± 5.6 years and the indication for APR was predominantly cancer (99%, 170/172). The pooled percentage of recurrent perineal hernia was 39% (95% CI: 27%-52%) after biological mesh closure, 29% (95% CI: 21%-39%) after synthetic mesh closure, 37% (95% CI: 14%-67%) after tissue flap reconstruction only and 9% (95% CI: 1%-45%) after tissue flap reconstruction combined with mesh. CONCLUSION: Recurrence rates after mesh repair of perineal hernia are high, without a clear difference between biological and synthetic meshes. The addition of a tissue flap to mesh repair seemed to have a favourable outcome, which warrants further investigation.

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

OBJECTIVE: 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. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: BIOPEX is the only randomized trial in this field, which was negative on its primary endpoint (30-day wound healing). METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Quantifying displacement of urogenital organs after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer.

AIM: This study aimed to quantify displacement of urogenital organs after abdominoperineal resection (APR), and to explore patient and treatment characteristics associated with displacement. METHOD: Patients from 16 centres who underwent APR for primary or recurrent rectal cancer (2001-2018) with evaluable preoperative and 6-18 months postoperative radiological imaging were included in the study. Anatomical landmarks on sagittal images were related to a coordinate system based on reference lines between fixed bony structures and absolute displacements were calculated using the Pythagorean theorem. Rotation of landmarks was measured relative to a pubic-S5 reference line. RESULTS: There were 248 patients included of which 171 were men and 77 women. The median displacement of the internal urethral orifice was 25 mm in men (maximum 65), and 17 mm in women (maximum 50). Rotation of the internal urethral orifice was in a caudal direction in 160/170 (94%) of men and 65/73 (89%) of women, with a median of 32 degrees (maximum 85) and 33 degrees (maximum 83), respectively. Displacements of the posterior bladder wall, distal end of prostatic urethra and cervix were significantly correlated with the internal urethral orifice. In linear regression analysis, biological mesh reconstruction of the pelvic floor and visceral interposition were significantly associated with increased displacement of the internal urethral orifice, and female gender and any filling of the presacral space with decreased displacement. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial absolute displacement and rotation of urogenital organs after APR for rectal cancer were observed, but with high variability among both men and women, and being significantly associated with reconstructive interventions.

Does oncological outcome differ between restorative and nonrestorative low anterior resection in patients with primary rectal cancer?

AIM: Nonrestorative low anterior resection (n-rLAR) (also known as low Hartmann's) is performed for rectal cancer when a poor functional outcome is anticipated or there have been problems when constructing the anastomosis. Compared with restorative LAR (rLAR), little oncological outcome data are available for n-rLAR. The aim of this study was to compare oncological outcomes between rLAR and n-rLAR for primary rectal cancer. METHOD: This was a nationwide cross-sectional comparative study including all elective sphincter-saving LAR procedures for nonmetastatic primary rectal cancer performed in 2011 in 71 Dutch hospitals. Oncological outcomes of patients undergoing rLAR and n-rLAR were collected in 2015; the data were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the results compared using log-rank testing. Uni- and multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to evaluate the association between the type of LAR and oncological outcome measures. RESULTS: A total of 1197 patients were analysed, of whom 892 (75%) underwent rLAR and 305 (25%) underwent n-rLAR. The 3-year local recurrence (LR) rate was 3% after rLAR and 8% after n-rLAR (P < 0.001). The 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival rates were 77% (rLAR) vs 62% (n-rLAR) (P < 0.001) and 90% (rLAR) vs 75% (n-rLAR) (P < 0.001), respectively. In multivariable Cox analysis, n-rLAR was independently associated with a higher risk of LR (OR = 2.95) and worse overall survival (OR = 1.72). CONCLUSION: This nationwide study revealed that n-rLAR for rectal cancer was associated with poorer oncological outcome than r-LAR. This is probably a noncausal relationship, and might reflect technical difficulties during low pelvic dissection in a subset of those patients, with oncological implications.

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).

BACKGROUND: Abdominoperineal 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. METHODS: Patients 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. DISCUSSION: The 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 REGISTRATION: The trial was retrospectively registered at Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04004650 on July 2, 2019.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis on Omentoplasty for the Management of Abdominoperineal Defects in Patients Treated for Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the effects of omentoplasty on pelviperineal morbidity following abdominoperineal resection (APR) in patients with cancer. BACKGROUND: Recent studies have questioned the use of omentoplasty for the prevention of perineal wound complications. METHODS: A systematic review of published literature since 2000 on the use of omentoplasty during APR for cancer was undertaken. The authors were requested to share their source patient data. Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Fourteen studies comprising 1894 patients (n = 839 omentoplasty) were included. The majority had APR for rectal cancer (87%). Omentoplasty was not significantly associated with the risk of presacral abscess formation in the overall population (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.79-1.56), nor in planned subgroup analysis (n = 758) of APR with primary perineal closure for nonlocally advanced rectal cancer (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.68-1.64). No overall differences were found for complicated perineal wound healing within 30 days (RR 1.30; 95% CI 0.92-1.82), chronic perineal sinus (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.53-2.20), and pelviperineal complication necessitating reoperation (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.80-1.42) as well. An increased risk of developing a perineal hernia was found for patients submitted to omentoplasty (RR 1.85; 95% CI 1.26-2.72). Complications related to the omentoplasty were reported in 4.6% (95% CI 2.5%-8.6%). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis revealed no beneficial effect of omentoplasty on presacral abscess formation and perineal wound healing after APR, while it increases the likelihood of developing a perineal hernia. These findings do not support the routine use of omentoplasty in APR for cancer.

CT assessment of the quality of omentoplasty and its implications for perineal wound healing.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to examine the impact of an omentoplasty and its quality on pelviperineal morbidity after abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer. METHODS: This was a retrospective single-centre study of consecutive patients undergoing APR for primary or recurrent rectal cancer between 2000 and 2018. Quality of omentoplasty was categorised (sufficient vs insufficient) based on postoperative CT scans. Main study endpoints were perineal wound healing and perineal hernia. RESULTS: This study included 100 patients: 16 with a sufficient omentoplasty, 16 with an insufficient omentoplasty, and 68 without omentoplasty. Rate of pelviperineal complications within 30 days was 44%, 69% and 64% (P = 0.283), and delayed wound healing at 3 months was 19%, 54% and 27%, respectively (P = 0.109). Sufficient omentoplasty was not significantly associated with less delayed healing in multivariable analysis (OR 0.597; 95% CI 0.149-2.397). An insufficient omentoplasty demonstrated significantly higher rates of delayed healing at 6 months (46% vs 14%; P = 0.016) and chronic perineal sinus at 12 months (31% vs 3%; P = 0.008) compared with no omentoplasty. CONCLUSION: This relatively small series suggest that even a sufficient omentoplasty, as determined by postoperative imaging, does not reduce pelviperineal morbidity after APR for rectal cancer. The methodology of CT-based assessment of an omentoplasty as well as the correlation with postoperative outcomes has to be validated in future studies.

Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgical Management of Persisting Pelvic Sepsis or Chronic Sinus After Low Anterior Resection.

BACKGROUND: Redo surgery of persisting pelvic sepsis or chronic presacral sinus after low anterior resection for rectal cancer is challenging. Transanal minimally invasive surgery improves visibility and accessibility of the deep pelvis. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the conventional approach with transanal minimally invasive surgery for redo pelvic surgery with or without anastomotic reconstruction. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted in a tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: All consecutive patients undergoing redo pelvic surgery after low anterior resection for rectal cancer between January 2005 and March 2018 were included. INTERVENTIONS: Redo surgery was divided into redo anastomosis and intersphincteric completion proctectomy. Transanal minimally invasive surgery procedures since November 2014 were compared with the conventional approach. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary end points were procedural characteristics and 90-day major complications. RESULTS: In total, 104 patients underwent redo surgery; 47 received a redo anastomosis (18 conventional and 29 transanal minimally invasive surgery) and 57 underwent intersphincteric completion proctectomy (35 conventional and 22 transanal minimally invasive surgery). The transabdominal part of the transanal minimally invasive surgery procedures was performed laparoscopically in 72% and 59% of redo anastomosis and intersphincteric completion proctectomy, compared with 6% and 34% in the conventional group (p < 0.001 and p = 0.100). The 90-day major complication rate was 33% and 45% after redo anastomosis (p=0.546) and 29% and 41% after intersphincteric completion proctectomy (p=0.349) in conventional surgery and transanal minimally invasive surgery. LIMITATIONS: A limitation of this study is the relatively small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that transanal minimally invasive surgery is a valid alternative to conventional top-down redo pelvic surgery for persisting pelvic sepsis or chronic sinus, with more often a laparoscopic approach for the abdominal part. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B87. MANEJO QUIRÚRGICO TRANSANAL MÍNIMAMENTE INVASIVO DE LA SEPSIS PÉLVICA PERSISTENTE O DE UN SENO CRÓNICO DESPUÉS DE RESECCIÓN ANTERIOR BAJA: La cirugía de reoperación por sepsis pélvica persistente o un seno presacro crónico después de una resección anterior baja por cáncer de recto es un desafío. La cirugía transanal mínimamente invasiva mejora la visibilidad y la accesibilidad a la región profunda de la pelvis.El objetivo de este estudio fue comparar el abordaje convencional con la cirugía transanal mínimamente invasiva para cirugía pélvica de reoperación con o sin reconstrucción anastomótica.Este es un estudio de cohorte retrospectiva.Este estudio se realizó en un centro de referencia terciario.Se incluyeron todos los pacientes consecutivos que se sometieron a una cirugía pélvica de reoperación después de una resección anterior baja por cáncer de recto entre enero de 2005 y marzo de 2018.La cirugía de reoperación se dividió en reconstrucción de anastomosis y proctectomía interesfintérica. Los procedimientos de cirugía transanal mínimamente invasiva desde noviembre de 2014 se compararon con el abordaje convencional.Los puntos primarios fueron las características del procedimiento y las complicaciones mayores a 90 días.En total, 104 pacientes fueron sometidos a cirugía de reoperación; 47 recibieron una reconstrucción de anastomosis (18 abordaje convencional y 29 cirugía transanal mínimamente invasiva) y 57 se sometieron a una proctectomía interesfintérica (35 abordaje convencional y 22 cirugía transanal mínimamente invasiva). La parte transabdominal de los procedimientos de cirugía transanal mínimamente invasiva se realizó por vía laparoscópica en el 72% y el 59% de las reconstrucciones de anastomosis y las proctectomías interesfintéricas, respectivamente, en comparación con el 6% y el 34%, respectivamente, en el grupo convencional (p <0.001 y p = 0.100). La tasa de complicaciones mayores a los 90 días fue del 33% y del 45% después de la anastomosis de reconstrucción (p = 0.546) y del 29% y 41% después de la proctectomía interesfintérica (p = 0.349) en cirugía convencional y cirugía transanal mínimamente invasiva, respectivamente.La limitación de este estudio es el tamaño relativamente pequeño de la muestra.Este estudio sugiere que la cirugía transanal mínimamente invasiva es una alternativa válida para la cirugía pélvica de reoperación convencional en sepsis pélvica persistente o seno crónico, con un abordaje laparoscópico utilizado más frecuentemente para la parte abdominal. Vea el Abstract del video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B87.

Propensity Score Adjusted Comparison of Pelviperineal Morbidity With and Without Omentoplasty Following Abdominoperineal Resection for Primary Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Abdominoperineal resection is associated with a high incidence of perineal complications, and whether this is reduced by an omentoplasty is still unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the impact of omentoplasty on pelviperineal morbidity in patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer. DESIGN: This was a retrospective comparative cohort study using propensity score analyses to reduce potential confounding. SETTING: The study was undertaken in 2 teaching hospitals and 1 university hospital. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection for primary rectal cancer between 2000 and 2017 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main end points were primary perineal wound healing at 30 days and overall and specific pelviperineal morbidity until the end of the study period. RESULTS: Among 254 included patients, 106 had an omentoplasty. The primary perineal wound healing rate at 30 days was similar for omentoplasty and no omentoplasty (65% vs 60%; p = 0.422), also after adjusting for potential confounding by propensity score analysis (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.45-1.75). Being free from any pelviperineal complication at 6 months (75% vs 79%; p = 0.492), absence of any pelviperineal morbidity until 1 year (54% vs 49%; p = 0.484), and incidence of persistent perineal sinus (6% vs 10%; p = 0.256) were also similar in both groups. The unadjusted higher perineal hernia rate after omentoplasty (18% vs 7%; p = 0.011) did not remain statistically significant after regression analysis including the propensity score (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.46-3.88). Complications related to the omentoplasty itself were observed in 8 patients, of whom 6 required reoperation. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by the retrospective and nonrandomized design causing some heterogeneity between the 2 cohorts. CONCLUSION: In this multicenter study using propensity score analyses, the use of omentoplasty did not lower the incidence or the duration of pelviperineal morbidity in patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer, and omentoplasty itself was associated with a risk of reoperation. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A918.

Snapshot Study on the Value of Omentoplasty in Abdominoperineal Resection with Primary Perineal Closure for Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Perineal wound complications are often encountered following abdominoperineal resection (APR). Filling of the pelvic space by omentoplasty (OP) might prevent these complications, but there is scant evidence to support its routine application. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of OP on perineal wound complications. METHODS: All patients undergoing APR with primary perineal closure (PPC) for non-locally advanced rectal cancer in 71 Dutch centers in 2011 were selected from a cross-sectional snapshot study. Outcomes were compared between PPC with or without OP, which was based on variability in practice among surgeons. RESULTS: Of 639 patients who underwent APR for rectal cancer, 477 had a non-locally advanced tumor and PPC was performed. Of those, 172 (36%) underwent OP. Patients with OP statistically more often underwent an extralevator approach (32% vs. 14%). Median follow-up was 41 months (interquartile range 22-47). There were no significant differences with or without OP in terms of non-healing of the perineal wound at 30 days (47% vs. 48%), non-healing at the end of follow-up (9% vs. 5%), pelvic abscess (12% vs. 13%) or re-intervention for ileus (5% vs. 3%). Perineal hernia developed significantly more often after OP (13% vs. 7%), also by multivariable analysis (odds ratio 2.61, 95% confidence interval 1.271-5.364; p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to previous assumptions, OP after APR with PPC appeared not to improve perineal wound healing and seemed to increase the occurrence of perineal hernia. These findings question the routine use of OP for primary filling of the pelvic space.

Do previsit expectations correlate with satisfaction of new patients presenting for evaluation with an orthopaedic surgical practice?

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction is associated with increased compliance, improved treatment outcomes, and decreased risk of litigation. Factors such as patient understanding and psychological well-being are recognized influences on satisfaction. Less is known about the relationship between previsit expectations and satisfaction. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Are there correlations among previsit expectations, met expectations, and patient satisfaction? (2) What are the categories of expectations, and which one(s) correlate with satisfaction? METHODS: Eighty-six new patients presenting to a hand surgery practice of a tertiary referral hospital with 70% direct primary care referrals, mostly with elective concerns, indicated their previsit expectations (Patient Intention Questionnaire [PIQ]). Immediately after the visit, the same patients rated the degree to which their previsit expectations were met (Expectation Met Questionnaire [EMQ]) and their satisfaction level (Medical Interview Satisfaction Scale). These tools have been used in primary care office settings and claim good psychometric properties, and although they have not been strictly validated for responsiveness and other test parameters, they have good face validity. We then conducted a multivariable backward linear regression to determine whether (1) scores on the PIQ; and (2) scores on the EMQ are associated with satisfaction. RESULTS: Satisfaction correlated with met expectations (r=0.36; p<0.001) but not with previsit expectations (r=-0.01, p=0.94). We identified five primary categories of previsit expectations that accounted for 50% of the variance in PIQ: (1) "Information and Explanation"; (2) "Emotional and Understanding"; (3) "Emotional Problems"; (4) "Diagnostics"; and (5) "Comforting". The only category of met expectations that correlated with satisfaction was Information and Explanation (r=0.43; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients seeing a hand surgeon, met expectations correlate with satisfaction. In particular, patients with met expectations regarding information and explanation were more satisfied with their visit. Efforts to determine the most effective methods for conveying unexpected information warrant investigation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study.

Diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome: interobserver reliability of the blinded scratch-collapse test.

The reliability of the scratch-collapse test for diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) has not been tested by independent investigators. This study measured the reliability of the scratch-collapse test comparing the treating hand surgeon and blinded evaluators. We performed a prospective observational study of 41 patients with a provisional diagnosis of CTS or a combination of CTS and cubital tunnel syndrome and prescribed electrodiagnostic testing. The treating hand surgeon performed the scratch-collapse test. Next, the test was administered by one of the six observers, unaware of the patient's symptoms and the diagnosis made by treating hand surgeon. The kappa statistic (κ) was used to calculate the interrater reliability between the treating hand surgeons and blinded scratchers. The agreement between the blinded observers and the hand surgeons on the scratch-collapse test was substantial 0.63 (95 % CI, 0.34-0.87; p < 0.001). The sensitivity of the blinded scratch test in our sample was 32 %. In a small study with a spectrum bias favoring electrophysiologically confirmed CTS the reliability was lower than that reported by the inventors of the test, but was still substantial. We propose a larger study of patients with a greater variety of electrodiagnostic test results using fewer observers with more experience.