Purse string closure of perineal defects after abdominoperineal excision.

PURPOSE: 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). MATERIAL AND METHODS: 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). RESULTS: 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 ± 6.5 days. After a mean follow-up of 23.5 ± 20.3 months, the median time to perineal wound closure was 96 ± 60 days, the persistent perineal sinus rate was 6% (n = 2), and one patient developed a perineal incisional hernia. CONCLUSION: 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.

The role of perineal application of prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy for prevention of wound-related complications after abdomino-perineal resection: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Closed perineal wounds often fail to heal by primary intention after abdomino-perineal resection (APR) and are often complicated by surgical site infection (SSI) and/or wound dehiscence. Recent evidence showed encouraging results of prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy (pNPWT) for prevention of wound-related complications in surgery. Our objective was to gather and discuss the early existing literature regarding the use of pNPWT to prevent wound-related complications on perineal wounds after APR. METHODS: Medline, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for original publications and congress abstracts reporting the use of pNPWT after APR on closed perineal wounds. RESULTS: Seven publications were included for analysis. Two publications reported significantly lower incidence of SSI in pNPWT patients than in controls with a risk reduction of about 25-30%. Two other publications described similar incidences of SSI between the two groups of patients but described SSI in pNPWT patients to be less severe. One study reported significantly lower incidence of wound dehiscence in pNPWT patients than in controls. CONCLUSION: The largest non-randomized studies investigating the effect of pNPWT on the prevention of wound-related complications after APR showed encouraging results in terms of reduction of SSI and wound dehiscence that deserve further investigation and confirmation.

Perineal Wound Healing Following Abdominoperineal Resection of the Rectum.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate perineal wound healing rates following abdominoperineal resection (APR) or extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for rectal cancer, with a focus on identifying associated risk factors and outcomes. METHODOLOGY: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients undergoing APR or ELAPE for rectal cancer in a tertiary centre between 2013 and 2020. Data on demographics, comorbidities, surgical techniques, and perineal wound outcomes were collected and analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, IBM Corp., Version 27.0, Armonk, NY). Statistical significance was set at p<0.05. RESULTS: A total of 87 patients were included, with a mean age of 64 years and the majority being male (66.7%). Neoadjuvant radiotherapy was administered in 87.4% of cases. Perineal wound complications were documented in 52 cases (59.8%), with major complications observed in 11 cases (12.6%). Healing within six months was achieved in 48 patients (55.2%), while 39 patients (44.8%) developed chronic perineal wounds. Logistic regression analysis revealed omentoplasty as a significant predictor of perineal wound healing rate showing a significant negative association (p=0.0289). CONCLUSION: Perineal wound healing rates following APR or ELAPE varied. While most patients achieved complete healing, chronic perineal wounds presented challenges. Omentoplasty was associated with lower odds of healing, suggesting the need for further investigation into its role. These findings underscore the importance of patient counselling and multidisciplinary management strategies to optimize outcomes in rectal cancer surgery.

[Diagnostics, treatment and aftercare of anal cancer]. / Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Analkarzinoms.

Despite the increasing incidence, anal cancer is still a rare gastrointestinal tumor, so that due to the broadness of the primary care there is often little experience in the care of affected patients. Squamous cell cancer (SCC) constitutes more than 90% of all anal cancers and is nearly always associated with an infection by the human papillomavirus. This article concentrates on SCC of the anal canal and anal margin. The focus is on the primary diagnostics, surgical treatment, response assessment and aftercare. Treatment is carried out according to the decision of the interdisciplinary tumor board, independent of the tumor location and stage. Anal margin cancer in stage I (and IIa) can be successfully treated by an R0 excision. Combined chemoradiotherapy as the standard treatment in stages II and III is briefly summarized. The article is essentially based on the new German S3 guidelines on anal cancer.

The management of perineal hernia following abdomino-perineal excision for cancer.

PURPOSE: Perineal hernia (PH) is a tardive complication following abdomino-perineal resection (APR). Many repair methods are described and evidences are lacking. The aim of this study was to report PH management, analyze surgery outcomes and review the available literature. METHODS: We retrospectively included all consecutive PH repair after APR performed between 2001 and 2017. We recorded data on APR surgery, PH symptoms and repair, and follow-up (recurrence and morbidity). Literature review included published articles on PubMed between 1960 and 2017. RESULTS: 24 PH repairs were included. The approach was perineal N = 16, abdominal N = 5 and combined N = 3. A biological mesh was used for 17, a synthetic for 5 and a flap for 2 patients. The median follow-up was 25 months. Overall morbidity was 37.5% (N = 9): 37.5% for the perineal, 20% for the abdominal, and 66.7% for the combined approach. Complications occurred in 35.3% of biological and 20% of synthetic mesh repairs. Recurrence rate was 41.7%, similar for biological (n = 8, 47.1%) and synthetic meshs (n = 2; 40%). No recurrence occurred in the flap group. Depending of the approach, we found 50% for perineal (n = 8) and 40% of the abdominal cohort (N = 2). Among twelve studies, recurrence rates ranged from 0 to 66.7%. Abdominal or laparoscopic approach with synthetic mesh was associated with less recurrences (0 and 12.5% respectively) and complications (37.5% and 9.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Recurrences following PH repair are high irrespective of the repair technique. More studies are necessary to identify PH risk factors and decide the appropriate perineal reconstruction.

Transperineal minimally invasive abdomino-perineal resection: preliminary outcomes and future perspectives.

Abdomino-perineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer is challenging, due to the difficult exposure of the surgical field. Many investigations proved worst results in terms of circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement compared to rectal anterior resection (RAR) with total mesorectal excision (TME). Extralevator abdomino-perineal excision (ELAPE) improved oncologic outcomes, but is burdened by important limitations (positioning, wound closure). Applying the concept of transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) and the experience in transanal TME (TaTME) to the perineal phase of APR could overcome these limitations. A series of consecutive cases of transperineal minimally invasive APR was matched with an historical series of standard laparoscopic APR. Primary endpoints were global complication rate and CRM involvement, secondary endpoints were operative time, time to flatus and oral feeding and length of hospital stay. Fifteen patients underwent a transperineal minimally invasive APR for cancer, median age was 65 (49-88) years, median distance from the anal verge was 3 (2-5) cm and six patients underwent neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy. No intraoperative complications occurred in both groups; need of post-operative blood transfusions was significantly higher in the traditional laparoscopic APR group. No differences were reported in terms of wound dehiscence between the two groups. Positive CRM was reduced in transperineal minimally invasive APR versus standard laparoscopic APR, but the difference was not statistically significant. Transperineal minimally invasive APR appears to be safe and could improve post-operative and oncologic outcomes by means of better vision and reduced surgical trauma.

Anorectal Malignant Melanoma-Defining the Optimal Surgical Treatment and Prognostic Factors.

Patients with anorectal malignant melanoma (ARMM) have a poor prognosis. Optimal surgical treatment is not defined. The aim of the study was to define the surgical treatment for ARMM, to compare the overall survival (OS) of abdomino-perineal resection (APR) and wide local excision (WLE) and to study various prognostic factors. Thirty patients of ARMM were managed, 20 with locoregional disease, 10 metastatic. Of the 20 patients with locoregional disease, 15 underwent APR and 5 WLE. The 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-year overall survival rates (by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis) in the APR group were 67, 40, 40, and 32%, and in WLE group were 100, 100, 67, and 67% respectively. Median survival for APR and WLE groups were 13 and 36 months and were not significant (p 0.48). Node-negative patients had better survival than node positive in the APR group (56 vs. 13 months) (p 0.017). Patients with tumor size < 2cm, lymphovascular invasion and perineural invasion negative, and margin-negative and with superficial infiltration had a trend toward better survival than their counterparts. WLE gives an equivalent oncological outcome and can be offered for patients with smaller ARMM and APR for locally advanced, larger tumors or as a salvage following recurrence after WLE.

Small Cell Carcinoma of Anal Canal - A Rare Case Report.

Anal canal malignancy is one of the dreadful conditions. Most of the anal canal malignancies are squamous cell carcinomas for which the treatment is well established and the prognosis is usually favourable. Small cell carcinoma of anal canal is a very rare condition and poorly understood, which can present as haemorrhoids in its early stages and has an aggressive course. We present a case of small cell carcinoma of anal canal who underwent Abdomino Perineal Resection (APR) and chemotherapy. He developed liver metastasis during the course of chemotherapy and succumbed to the condition 4 months later.

Selective extra levator versus conventional abdomino perineal resection: experience from a tertiary-care center.

BACKGROUND: To compare extra levator abdomino perineal resection (ELAPER) with conventional abdominoperineal resection (APER) in terms of short-term oncological and clinical outcomes. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database including all the patients of rectal cancer who underwent APER at Tata Memorial Center between July 1, 2013, and January 31, 2015. Short-term oncological parameters evaluated included circumferential resection margin involvement (CRM), tumor site perforation, and number of nodes harvested. Peri operative outcomes included blood loss, length of hospital stay, postoperative perineal wound complications, and 30-day mortality. The χ(2)-test was used to compare the results between the two groups. RESULTS: Forty-two cases of ELAPER and 78 cases of conventional APER were included in the study. Levator involvement was significantly higher in the ELAPER compared with the conventional group; otherwise, the two groups were comparable in all the aspects. CRM involvement was seen in seven patients (8.9%) in the conventional group compared with three patients (7.14%) in the ELAPER group. Median hospital stay was significantly longer with ELAPER. The univariate analysis of the factors influencing CRM positivity did not show any significance. CONCLUSIONS: ELAPER should be the preferred approach for low rectal tumors with involvement of levators. For those cases in which levators are not involved, as shown in preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the current evidence is insufficient to recommend ELAPER over conventional APER. This stresses the importance of preoperative MRI in determining the best approach for an individual patient.

Sphincter saving and abdomino-perineal resections following neoadjuvant chemoradiation in locally advanced low rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The improvement in surgical techniques alongside neoadjuvant chemoradiation enabled more patients with low rectal cancer to have sphincter preservation. STUDY AIM: To compare the oncologic and functional outcome in patients with locally advanced low rectal cancer treated by neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by sphincter saving resection (SSR) against those who underwent abdomino-perineal resection (APR). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 111 patients with low rectal cancer were included in the study. Sixty-one consented patients who prospectively underwent SSR, from Jan 2008 to Jan 2013, and a retrospective group, formed of 50 patients, selected from cases seen at NCI, with comparable demographic, clinical and pathologic criteria, who underwent APR from Jan 2003 to Jan 2008. All lesions were <5 cm from anal verge. All 111 patients received preoperative chemoradiation and total mesorectal excision. RESULTS: All tumors were located at a median of 3.6 cm (range 2.5-4.5 cm) for the SSR group, and 3.5 cm (range 2.5-4.6 cm) for the APR group, from the anal verge. The median follow-up was 34 months (range 1-60 months) for both groups. The difference in disease recurrence and OS between the APR and SSR groups were both statistically insignificant. CONCLUSION: In low rectal cancer, the sphincter preservation appears to have nearly the same oncologic outcome compared to APR, this might be attributed to the small sample size and short follow up period. However, patients with sphincter preservation have certainly demonstrated an indisputable better functional outcome, in terms of stoma avoidance and adequate continence.

A study of laparoscopic extraperitoneal sigmoid colostomy after abdomino-perineal resection for rectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To established a procedure for laparoscopic extraperitoneal ostomy after abdomino-perineal resection (APR) and study safety aspects and complications. METHOD: From July 2011 to July 2012, 36 patients with low rectal cancer undergoing APR were included in the study and divided into extraperitoneal ostomy group (n = 18) and intraperitoneal ostomy group (n = 18). Short- and long-term complications were compared between the two groups. All patients were followed up and the median duration was 17 months (range: 12-24). RESULTS: The rates of short-term complication related to colostomies were comparable between the two groups, except the rate for stoma edema was higher in the extraperitoneal group (33.3% vs 0%; P = 0.008). In the intraperitoneal ostomy group, two patients developed stoma prolapse, one had stoma stenosis, and two had parastomal hernia. In contrast, no long-term complications related to colostomies occurred in the extraperitoneal ostomy group. The rate of long-term complication was lower in the extraperitoneal ostomy group (0% vs 22.2%; P = 0.036). CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic extraperitoneal ostomy is a relatively simple and safe procedure, with fewer long-term complications related to colostomy. However the follow-up period was not too long and needs to be extended.

Neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy; an opportunity in sphincter preserving procedure for rectal cancer.

AIM: The present study was designed to assess the impact of neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy on the possibility of utilizing sphincter preserving techniques in rectal cancer surgery. BACKGROUND: For both patients and surgeons anal sphincter preserving surgery serves as the ideal procedure to treat rectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with rectal cancer who were admitted to Shohadaye Tajrish hospital between 2001 and 2011 and underwent sphincter preserving or non-preserving surgery were identified. They were divided into those who had received neo-adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy prior to surgery and those who didn't, and the type of surgical procedure they underwent was compared between the two arms. Data regarding tumor pathology, tumor size and distance from anal verge before and after neo-adjuvant therapy, together with the duration of chemo-radiotherapy were also assessed. RESULTS: 103 patients with documented rectal cancer were included in our analysis. Among 47 patients who had not received neo-adjuvant therapy, 26 (55%) underwent APR while 15(32%) and 6(13%) patients were treated with LAR and VLAR respectively. Of the 56 patients who had gone through chemo-radiotherapy prior to surgery, 30 (53%) underwent APR while 14 (25%) and 10 (18%) patients were treated with LAR and VLAR respectively. 2 patients had unresectable tumor. Tumor staging before and after neo-adjuvant therapy showed a statistically significant difference (p=0.0001). CONCLUSION: Neo-adjuvant chemo-radiotherpy can decrease tumor size, increase the distance between the tumor and anal verge, and downgrade the staging. However, it does not necessarily increase the possibility of performing sphincter preserving surgery on patients suffering from low-lying tumors.

Analysis of outcome using a levator sparing technique of abdominoperineal excision of rectum and anus. Cylindrical ELAPE is not necessary in all patients.

AIMS: Abdominoperineal excision of rectum (APE) for cancer has a higher rate of local recurrence with a poorer outcome than stage matched anterior resection. The cylindrical excision (ELAPE) has been advocated to reduce local recurrence. However, this operation has greater morbidity and requires more post operative care. We report our outcomes from a single centre using a levator sparing dissection. METHODS: All patients undergoing APE from January 2007-June 2011 were evaluated. Case notes operation notes and pathology results were reviewed for complications and staging. Follow-up data for survival and recurrence were obtained from the cancer registry, imaging and from clinic follow up. RESULTS: Of all rectal cancers (n = 361), 43 had APE with curative intent. Median age was 67(IQR 59-76). Median tumour height was two centimetres from the dentate line (IQR 1-3.5 cm). Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was given in 98% of APE resections with curative intent. Median post operative hospital stay was 10 days (8-15). At a median follow up of 38 months (IQR30-49) for patients undergoing curative resection, 2 patients (4.6%) had local recurrence and overall mortality was 18.6% (n = 8). CONCLUSION: With adequate neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, a levator sparing excision of rectum remains a safe option with less morbidity and perioperative complications than has been described for ELAPE.

Abdomino-Perineal Resection for Low Rectal and Anal Malignancies in Ibadan, SOUTHWEST NIGERIA.

BACKGROUND: Colonic tumours are the third most common tumours in the Nigerian cancer registry after breast and cervical carcinoma. Tumours involving the distal rectum and anus are increasingly a significant portion of all colorectal and anal malignancies in Nigeria. The patients frequently present with advanced disease. Abdomino-Perineal resection (APR), is thus an essential modality of treatment alongside chemo-radiation. The aim of the study was to review the surgical outcomes of APR done for low rectal and anal malignancies in a resource poor setting in sub-Saharan Africa. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The demographic data, clinical features, management offered and outcomes of all patients who had had abdomino-perineal resection for colonic and anal malignancies at the University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria between 2007 and 2013 were included in this study. RESULTS: Over the 6-year period, 61 patients had abdomino-perineal resection for low colonic and anal malignancies in our institution. The indications were primary rectal carcinoma in 46 (75.4%) patients and anal carcinoma in 15 (24.6%) patients. The age ranged from 19-77 years with a mean of 48 years and median of 54 years. Majority were males in 33 (54.1%) patients. A fifth (20%) of the patients presented as emergency with large bowel obstruction that necessitated initial colostomy. Bleeding per rectum in 45 patients (73.8%), Weight loss in 26 patients (42.6%) and Tenesmus in 16 patients (26.2%) patients were the predominant complaints. All the patients were at stage AJCC 2A-3C (Duke Stage C or D) at presentation. Almost a third (66%) of the patients was incontinent of feaces. Palliative surgery was done for all the patients. The duration of follow up was between 3-36 months with a mean of 22 months. A total of 53 (86.9%) patients are alive after an average post-operative duration of 24 months, with 14 pts (23%) having local recurrence, and 22(36.1%) patients with hepatic metastases. Lymph nodal involvement was statistically significantly related to the survival status of the patients. Neo-adjuvant and adjuvant chemo-radiation did not affect outcomes in terms of local recurrence and survival. CONCLUSION: Abdomino-perineal resection is still the option of treatment in this environment for low rectal and anal malignancies in this environment. Early presentation and effective treatment shall improve the outcome.

Robotic rectal cancer surgery: technique of abdomino-perineal resection.

Rectal cancer surgery using a minimally invasive technique has been regarded as a challenging procedure. Since the introduction of the robotic surgical system into the operating theater, totally robotic rectal surgery has been attempted with several techniques. Abdomino-perineal resection might be a more reliable indication for totally robotic surgery than low anterior resection. Because the range of dissection is confined to the pelvic cavity and mobilization of the sigmoid colon, problems during totally robotic surgery can be minimized. With our technique, totally robotic surgery can be performed successfully. Technical advantages of the current robotic system can be reflected in patient benefits after totally robotic abdomino-perineal resection.