Video vignette: incisional perineal hernia repair-perineal approach.

A 51-year-old man with a medical history of recurrent anal carcinoma after chemoradiation underwent abdominoperineal resection in 2015. The patient presents with a bulging mass in the perineal zone, associated with pain. Physical examination and MRI during the workup reveal a large mass in the perineal region.

Incidence and risk factors for perineal hernia after robotic abdominoperineal resection: a single-center, retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Perineal hernia (PH) is a late complication of abdominoperineal resection (APR) that may compromise a patient's quality of life. The frequency and risk factors for PH after robotic APR adopting recent rectal cancer treatment strategies remain unclear. METHODS: Patients who underwent robotic APR for rectal cancer between December 2011 and June 2022 were retrospectively examined. From July 2020, pelvic reinforcement procedures, such as robotic closure of the pelvic peritoneum and levator ani muscles, were performed as prophylactic procedures for PH whenever feasible. PH was diagnosed in patients with or without symptoms using computed tomography 1 year after surgery. We examined the frequency of PH, compared characteristics between patients with PH (PH+) and without PH (PH-), and identified risk factors for PH. RESULTS: We evaluated 142 patients, including 53 PH+ (37.3%) and 89 PH- (62.6%). PH+ had a significantly higher rate of preoperative chemoradiotherapy (26.4% versus 10.1%, p = 0.017) and a significantly lower rate of undergoing pelvic reinforcement procedures (1.9% versus 14.0%, p = 0.017). PH+ had a lower rate of lateral lymph node dissection (47.2% versus 61.8%, p = 0.115) and a shorter operative time (340 min versus 394 min, p = 0.110). According to multivariate analysis, the independent risk factors for PH were preoperative chemoradiotherapy, not undergoing lateral lymph node dissection, and not undergoing a pelvic reinforcement procedure. CONCLUSIONS: PH after robotic APR for rectal cancer is not a rare complication under the recent treatment strategies for rectal cancer, and performing prophylactic procedures for PH should be considered.

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

PURPOSE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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 of 21 (± 7). Overall survival during the follow-up period was 91%. CONCLUSION: Our series shows a favourable short- and medium-term outcome with routine insertion of mesh for perineal wound closure.

Robotic repair of perineal hernias: a video vignette and review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Perineal hernias can be secondarily acquired following abdominoperineal resection of the rectum. While transabdominal minimally invasive techniques have traditionally used laparoscopy, there are few studies published on the robotic platform, which has been gaining popularity for other types of hernia repairs. We review the existing literature, share a video vignette, and provide practical tips for surgeons interested in adopting this approach. METHODS: A literature search in Pubmed was performed to include all articles in English describing robotic repair of perineal hernias with identification of variables of interest related to repair. A case presentation with an accompanying video vignette and lessons learned from the experience are provided. RESULTS: Seven case reports (four containing video) published between 2019 and 2022 were included. Most articles (n = 5) utilized the Da Vinci Si or Xi, and most patients (n = 5) had undergone abdominoperineal resection with neoadjuvant chemotherapy to treat rectal cancer. Patients were positioned in Trendelenburg with rightward tilt (n = 2), modified lithotomy (n = 1), or a combination of the two (n = 1). All articles (n = 7) reported closing the defect and using mesh. Three articles describe placing five ports (one camera, three robotic, one assistant). There were no significant intraoperative or postoperative complications reported, and no recurrence noted at 3-27 months follow-up. Based on our experience, as shown in the video vignette, we recommend lithotomy positioning, using porous polypropylene mesh anchored to the periosteum of the sacrum and peritoneum overlying the bladder and side wall, and placing a drain above the mesh. CONCLUSIONS: A robotic transabdominal approach to perineal hernia repair is a viable alternate to laparoscopy based on low complication rates and lack of recurrence. Prospective and longer duration data are needed to compare the techniques.

Postoperative perineal hernia repair: what is the evidence?

The present study determined the characteristics of perineal hernia treatment in the literature, and the incidence of postoperative recurrence was stratified according to repair techniques. A systematic search of the available literature on the treatment of postoperative perineal hernias was performed using a major database. The types of repair techniques and outcome were entered into an electronic database and a pooled analysis was performed. A total of 213 cases of postoperative perineal hernia repair were collected from 20 relevant articles in the literature after excluding case reports (n < 3). Synthetic mesh was the material used most frequently for perineal hernia repair (55.9%). The most frequently used approach in perineal hernia repair was the perineal approach (56.5%). The recurrence rate was highest with the use of biological mesh (40.4%) and the perineal approach (35.6%). The recurrence rate was lowest in the combined abdominal & perineal approach (0%), followed by the abdominal approach (8.8%) and the laparoscopic approach (11.8%). A number of different repair techniques have been described in the literature. The use of synthetic mesh via a combined abdominal-perineal approach or intraabdominal/laparoscopic approach was shown to be associated with a reduced postoperative recurrence rate.

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.

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.

Perineal hernia repair after extralevator abdominoperineal excision, how we do it (PERineal Laparoscopic Sling: PERLS Technique).

PURPOSE: Recent shift to radical extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) approach has seen an increased incidence of post-operative perineal hernia. However, there is no standardised surgical approach for its repair. The aim of this study was to report intra and post-operative results of the perineal hernia repair by the novel trans-abdominal PERineal Laparoscopic Sling (PERLS) Technique in patients who developed post-operative perineal hernia following ELAPE. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent perineal hernia repair by laparoscopic PERLS approach. All patients had undergone ELAPE with vertical rectus abdominis muscle (VRAM) flap reconstruction during the index surgery for treatment of rectal cancer. Post-operative complications, operative time, conversion rate to open surgery and incidence of recurrent perineal hernia were noted. RESULTS: Seven patients were operated for perineal hernia. The mean operative time was 105 min (range: 87 to 131 min). One case needed conversion to the open approach. The incidence of early complications was 57.1% including just single Clavien-Dindo I and two Clavien-Dindo II complications, while recurrence rate was 14.3%. CONCLUSION: PERLS perineal hernia repair is safe, performed in convenient time duration (mean = 105 min) and has reasonably less recurrence rate.

Is it worthwhile to perform closure of the pelvic peritoneum in laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal resection?

PURPOSE: There is no uniformity in the use of closure of the pelvic peritoneum (CPP) after laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE). This study aimed to evaluate the short-term outcomes of CPP after ELAPE and provide supporting evidence for the performance of CPP in laparoscopic ELAPE. METHODS: Patients with rectal cancer who underwent ELAPE from January 2014 to April 2019 were retrospectively investigated. CPP was routinely performed unless it was not feasible. The main outcome was the difference in the occurrence of perineal hernia (PH), small bowel obstruction (SBO) and perineal wound complications between laparoscopic and open ELAPE, which were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: Of the 244 patients included, 104 received laparoscopic ELAPE, and 140 received open ELAPE. Patients in the laparoscopic group suffered a higher incidence of PH (11.5% (12/104) vs. 5.0% (7/140), p = 0.049), SBO (10.6% (11/104) vs. 7.9% (11/140), p = 0.433) and major perineal wound complications (12.5% (13/104) vs. 7.9% (11/140), p = 0.228) than those in the open group. Multivariate analysis showed that no-CPP was an independent risk factor for the occurrence of PH (p = 0.022, OR 3.436, 95% CI 1.199-9.848) and major perineal wound complications (p = 0.012, OR 3.683, 95% CI 1.337-10.146). CONCLUSION: In this comparative cohort study with a risk of allocation bias, CPP was associated with a lower incidence of radiological PH and major perineal wound complications regardless of the surgical approach. Thus, we believe CPP could serve as an option L-ELAPE for the prevention of perineal complications. To further determine the impact of CPP on postoperative complications after ELAPE, a prospective multicentre study is needed.

Retrospective analysis of risk factors for postoperative perineal hernia after endoscopic abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: In contrast to open-surgery abdominoperineal excision (APE) for rectal cancer, postoperative perineal hernia (PPH) is reported to increase after extralevator APE and endoscopic surgery. In this study, therefore, we aimed to determine the risk factors for PPH after endoscopic APE. METHODS: A total 73 patients who underwent endoscopic APE for rectal cancer were collected from January 2009 to March 2020, and the risk factors for PPH were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: Nineteen patients (26%) developed PPH after endoscopic APE, and the diagnosis of PPH was made at 9-393 days (median: 183 days) after initial surgery. Logistic regression analysis showed that absence of pelvic peritoneal closure alone increased the incidence of PPH significantly (odds ratio; 13.76, 95% confidence interval; 1.48-1884.84, p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study showed that pelvic peritoneal closure could prevent PPH after endoscopic APE.

Perineal hernia repair after abdominoperineal rectal excision with prosthetic mesh-a single surgeon experience.

AIM: Extralevator abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer is associated with an increased incidence of perineal hernia. The purpose of this study was to determine clinical outcome following perineal hernia repair with prosthetic mesh by a perineal open approach. METHODS: We present a case series of 10 patients who underwent 12 repairs of their hernia using a prosthetic mesh placed by a perineal open technique. Patients were identified from a prospectively maintained database and their case records were retrieved along with their imaging and analysed retrospectively. RESULTS: Perineal hernia incidence in our series is 10%. The median age was 73 ± 5.9 years. No gender predilection was found. The median time interval between extralevator abdominoperineal excision and surgical repair of perineal hernia was 25.3 months. The surgical approach was perineal with the use of a double layer prosthetic mesh. The recurrence ratio was 30% (n = 3). Overall morbidity was also 30% with no major complications (Clavien-Dindo I-II). Recurrence following primary repair was diagnosed in a median time interval of 28.3 ± 16.57 months. Two patients had repeat surgery to treat their recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Our small series supports the use of a prosthetic mesh repair of perineal hernias through a perineal approach. It is safe and effective with complication rates similar to those previously reported.

The impact of laparoscopic technique on the rate of perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection of the rectum.

AIM: To determine the impact of surgical technique on the incidence of perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection (APR). METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on patients who underwent APR between May 2007 and March 2018 at our institution using our prospectively maintained Colorectal Cancer Database. Demographic and clinical parameters were compared between the open APR (OAPR) and laparoscopic APR (LAPR) groups using Student's t test, chi-squared, or Fisher's exact test. Putative risk factors were then analyzed using a Cox proportional hazard model with perineal hernia as the outcome. RESULTS: The study included 261 patients (191 OAPR and 70 LAPR). Intraoperative blood loss (596.0 ± 633.4 vs. 307.0 ± 307.2 mL, p < 0.001), duration of OR (249.6 ± 115.6 vs. 212.6 ± 75.1 min, p = 0.004), and length of stay (15.6 ± 18.0 vs. 10.4 ± 12.6 days, p = 0.031) were all greater for OAPR than LAPR patients, but wound complications other than hernia did not differ significantly. Perineal hernia was observed in 2.1% of OAPR and 12.9% of LAPR patients. In multivariable analysis, significant risk factors for perineal hernia were age, laparoscopic technique, and closure of the perineal wound with myocutaneous flap (HR 1.08, 11.13, and 31.51, respectively, all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: LAPR, although associated with less blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay than OAPR, was a significant risk factor for perineal hernia.

Laparoscopic perineal hernia repair following pelvic exenteration: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Acquired perineal hernia is a rare complication following extensive pelvic surgery. Radiotherapy is also a predisposing factor. Perineal hernia can cause chronic perineal pain, bowel obstruction, urinary disorders and a cosmetically disfiguring defect. The treatment of perineal hernia is surgical, usually consisting of mesh repair via an abdominal or perineal approach. CASE PRESENTATION: We present a case report and a surgical video of a 42-year-old woman with history of a squamous cell carcinoma. This patient had 3 recurrences since the diagnosis and a symptomatic perineal hernia. Complete regression of the recurrent malignancy allowed us to treat the perineal hernia. We performed laparoscopic repair with prosthetic mesh in this patient who had undergone multiple surgeries and radiotherapy, while preserving the omental flap that was used to reconstruct the posterior part of the vagina. CONCLUSION: There is no consensus concerning the preferred surgical approach, perineal or laparoscopic, as no study has demonstrated the superiority of either of these approaches. Laparoscopic repair for an acquired perineal hernia is safe and feasible. However, further studies including randomized trials are required to precisely evaluate the best surgical approach and type of mesh.

A new method of robot-assisted laparoscopic repair of perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection: a case report.

INTRODUCTION: Perineal hernia is a protrusion of the pelvic floor which contains intra-abdominal viscera. The occurrence of perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection (APR) is rare, but it has been reported in recent years that the incidence of perineal hernia after rectal cancer surgery has increased. This has been attributed to a shift towards extralevator abdominoperineal resection, together with more frequent and long-term use of neoadjuvant therapy. PRESENTATION OF CASE: Here, we report a patient with perineal hernia 5 years after APR surgery for rectal cancer. We decided to perform robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery on this patient using the da Vinci Surgical System. The perineal hernia was repaired by primary closure with the placement of a non-absorbable synthetic mesh as reinforcement for the pelvic floor. No complications occurred during the operation, and the patient was discharged on the third day after the operation. Clinical follow-up proceeded at the designated time intervals without difficulties. DISCUSSION: The recurrence rates of perineal hernia are still very high, and due to poor view, suturing, and mesh placement in the deep pelvis, surgeons face many challenges. Many methods have been described, but there is still no consensus as to the optimal repair technique for perineal hernia. CONCLUSION: Perineal hernias can be repaired with robot-assisted laparoscopy. Furthermore, compared with the open and laparoscopic methods, suturing and mesh placement are easier with the robot approach.

Further insights into the treatment of perineal hernia based on a the experience of a single tertiary centre.

AIM: There is little evidence concerning the optimal surgical technique for the repair of perineal hernia. This study aimed to report on the evolution of a technique for repair of perineal hernia by analysing the experience in a tertiary referral centre. METHOD: This was a retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent perineal hernia repair after abdominoperineal excision in a tertiary referral centre. The main study end-points were rate of recurrent perineal hernia, perineal wound complications and related re-intervention. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were included: in 18 patients a biological mesh was used followed by 16 patients who underwent synthetic mesh repair. Postoperative perineal wound infection occurred in two patients (11%) after biological mesh repair compared with four (25%) after synthetic mesh repair (P = 0.387). None of the meshes were explanted. Recurrent perineal hernia following biological mesh was found in 7 of 18 patients (39%) after a median of 33 months. The recurrence rate with a synthetic mesh was 5 of 16 patients (31%) after a median of 17 months (P = 0.642). Re-repair was performed in four (22%) and two patients (13%), respectively (P = 0.660). Eight patients required a transposition flap reconstruction to close the perineum over the mesh, and no recurrent hernias were observed in this subgroup (P = 0.030). No mesh-related small bowel complications occurred. CONCLUSION: Recurrence rates after perineal hernia repair following abdominoperineal excision were high, and did not seem to be related to the type of mesh. If a transposition flap was added to the mesh repair no recurrences were observed, but this finding needs confirmation in larger studies.

A low incidence of perineal hernia when using a biological mesh after extralevator abdominoperineal excision with or without pelvic exenteration or distal sacral resection in locally advanced rectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE), abdominoperineal excision (APE) or pelvic exenteration (PE) with or without sacral resection (SR) for locally advanced rectal cancer leaves a significant defect in the pelvic floor. At first, this defect was closed primarily. To prevent perineal hernias, the use of a biological mesh to restore the pelvic floor has been increasing. The aim of this study, was to evaluate the outcome of the use of a biological mesh after ELAPE, APE or PE with/without SR. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on patients who had ELAPE, APE or PE with/without SR with a biological mesh (Permacol™) for pelvic reconstruction in rectal cancer in our center between January 2012 and April 2015. The endpoints were the incidence of perineal herniation and wound healing complications. RESULTS: Data of 35 consecutive patients [22 men, 13 women; mean age 62 years (range 31-77 years)] were reviewed. Median follow-up was 24 months (range 0.4-64 months). Perineal hernia was reported in 3 patients (8.6%), and was asymptomatic in 2 of them. The perineal wound healed within 3 months in 37.1% (n = 13), within 6 months in 51.4% (n = 18) and within 1 year in 62.9% (n = 22). In 17.1% (n = 6), the wound healed after 1 year. It was not possible to confirm perineal wound healing in the remaining 7 patients (20.0%) due to death or loss to follow-up. Wound dehiscence was reported in 18 patients (51.4%), 9 of whom needed vacuum-assisted closure therapy, surgical closure or a flap reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: Closure of the perineal wound after (EL)APE with a biological mesh is associated with a low incidence of perineal hernia. Wound healing complications in this high-risk group of patients are comparable to those reported in the literature.

Biological mesh used to repair perineal hernias following abdominoperineal resection for anorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the outcome for patients who had undergone perineal hernia repair, via a perineal approach, using a biological mesh post-abdominoperineal excision (APE) for anorectal cancer. METHOD: All consecutive patients having undergone perineal hernia repair involving an extracellular matrix of porcine small intestinal submucosa at our hospital between 2015 and 2018 were included. Follow-up clinical examinations and computed tomography scans were performed. RESULTS: Six patients were treated surgically for symptomatic perineal hernia after a median of 31 months from APE. The median follow-up after hernia repair was 11 months (interquartile range [IQR], 6-35 months). Three patients (50%) developed a recurrent perineal hernia after a median interval of 6 months. CONCLUSION: Perineal hernia repair using a biological mesh resulted in a high recurrence rate in patients who had undergone APE for anorectal cancer.

Perineal hernia repair using permanent suture and mesh: a video case presentation.

INTRODUCTION: Perineal hernias are an uncommon cause of pelvic bulge symptoms in women with no established ideal surgical approach. We present the case of a posterior perineal hernia repaired robotically using permanent sutures and mesh. METHODS: A 67-year-old woman with a posterior perineal hernia and stage III uterovaginal prolapse presented to our office and underwent minimally invasive robotics-assisted abdominal surgery. Her levator plate defect was closed primarily using permanent sutures and reinforced using polypropylene mesh. A concomitant supracervical hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy were performed. RESULTS: Robotics-assisted transabdominal perineal hernia repair offered excellent intra-operative visualization and complete delineation of the defect. CONCLUSIONS: Robotics-assisted abdominal primary repair of the perineal hernia and overlying mesh placement offered a safe and effective repair of this rare disorder.

Perineal hernia mesh repair: a fixation with glue, sutures and tacks. How to do it.

Introduction: Many different approaches for the repair of a perineal hernia (PH) after abdomino-perineal rectum amputation (APR) have been described throughout the years. Literature shows us that the use of a mesh had the best results with relatively low rates of recurrence compared to primary suture. Yet there is still no consensus on the best technique for fixation of the mesh in the perineal cavity. Methods: We want to introduce an addition to the surgical repair technique, using laparoscopic glue to ensure a solid fixation of the mesh. This is to prevent small bowel from sliding into the perineal area due to the high abdominal pressure when standing and to avoid the difficulties and risks of laparoscopical suturing in this area. Results: This use of glue for fixation of the mesh has been successful in the three cases described, with no recurrence after one-year follow-up. Conclusion: A recurrent PH can be prevented by a solid fixation of the mesh using the technique of a glued mesh repair. This technique shows to be easy, fast and without recurrence.

Perineal hernia repair after abdominoperineal excision or extralevator abdominoperineal excision: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of perineal hernia after abdominoperineal excision and extralevator abdominoperineal excision ranges from 1 to 26%. In this systematic review, we compared surgical options and postoperative outcomes of perineal hernia repair in this setting from 2012 to 2016 with findings in a review of publications 1944-2011. METHODS: We searched the PubMed database using the keywords "hernia" AND "perineum" identified 392 papers published from 1946 to 2016. Two hundred and ninety-six papers published before 2012 were excluded and 96 were found to be potentially relevant. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies with a total of 108 patients were included in the final analysis. Perineal hernia repair was performed using the perineal approach in 75 patients (69.44%), the laparoscopic approach in 25 patients (23.14%), the open abdominal approach in three patients (2.77%) and the laparoscopic perineal approach in three patients (2.77%) and the open abdominoperineal approach in two patients (1.8%). Non-absorbable mesh was used in 41 (37.96%) of cases, composite mesh in 20 (18.51%) and biological mesh in 19 (17.59%). Flap reconstruction was used in 25 patients (23.14%). First and second recurrences were observed in 26 (24.07%) and 7 (26.92%) cases, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Comparison of perineal hernia repair from 1944 to 2011 and from 2012 to 2016 showed that perineal and laparoscopic approaches are currently the most commonly used techniques. Primary defect closure was abandoned in favor of synthetic or composite mesh placement. Use of flap reconstruction spread rapidly and the recurrence rate was low. Randomized control trials and a larger sample size are needed to confirm these data and to develop a gold standard treatment for secondary hernia repair after abdominoperineal excision or extralevator abdominoperineal excision.