Laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer: The myth of reinventing the wheel.

Background & Objective: To review oncological outcomes of laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision (LAP-ELAPE) for low rectal cancer.In locally advanced low rectal cancer, ELAPE which is en-bloc resection of levator muscles along with the tumor in a prone position has significantly decreased the rate of having either positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) or tumor perforation. The aim of the study was to determine the oncological outcomes of laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision (LAP-ELAPE) for low rectal cancer. Methods: This retrospective study was performed at Shaukat Khanum Cancer Hospital and Research Centre Lahore. Patients who underwent ELAPE for low rectal and anal cancer from January 2014 to December 2019 were selected. Data was collected using an electronic database through a hospital information system. Results: A total of 82 patients were included in the study having a median age of 39 years. Clinically preoperative tumor sizes were T2:2, T3:65, T4:15. Neo-adjuvant chemo radiotherapy was administered to 79 (96.3%) patients. Pathologically tumor sizes were T0:12, T2:15, T3:50, T4:5 with 79.2% (n=65) R0 resections. The mean operative time was 340.36±64.51 minutes and the mean blood loss was 99 milliliters. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 6.58±4.64 days. Seventeen (20.7%) cases had pathological circumferential resection margins positive (pCRM<1mm). However, tumor perforation was found in 8(9.8%) patients. Ninety days mortality was none while 36 patients experienced recurrence (local: 23, distant: 30, local + distant 17). The median survival time was 53.00±2.69 months. Conclusion: For locally advanced low rectal cancer, ELAPE has evolved as a safe oncological procedure with acceptable outcomes.

Negative pressure wound management in perineal wound status post abdominoperineal resection and extralevator abdominoperineal excision: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

PURPOSE: Recent evidence-based publications disclosed that negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) may reduce the incidence rate of surgical site infection (SSI) and length of stay (LOS) compared with conventional drainage in patient status post abdominoperineal resection (APR) and extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE). METHODS: Data sources: Eligible randomized controlled trials and retrospective and prospective studies published before January 2023 were retrieved from databases (Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase). STUDY SELECTION: (a) The study involved patients undergoing ELAPE or APR with postoperative NPWT; (b) the study compared NWPT with conventional drainage and reported at least one outcome of interest (i.e., SSI); and (c) the study provided adequate information to calculate the effect estimated for meta-analysis. INTERVENTIONS: We calculated the odds ratio (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The measure outcomes included surgical site infection(SSI) and length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: Eight articles, involving 547 patients, met the selection criteria. Compared to conventional drainage, NPWT was associated with a significantly lower SSI rate (fixed effect, OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.18-0.45; I2 = 0%) in eight studies and 547 patients. Besides, NPWT was associated with a shorter LOS (fixed effect, MD - 2.00; CI - 2.60 to - 1.39; I2 = 0%) than conventional drainage in three studies and 305 patients. In a trial sequential analysis, the cumulative number of patients in the analyses of both outcomes exceeded the required information size and surpassed the significance boundary in favor of NPWT, suggesting conclusive results. CONCLUSION: NPWT is superior to conventional drainage in both SSI rate and LOS, and the statistical power of SSI and LOS are confirmed by trial sequential analysis.

Supine bottom-up extralevator abdominoperineal excision for anorectal adenocarcinoma is not inferior to standard approach and may be thus safely performed.

BACKGROUND: Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (APE) for rectal carcinoma has been described in order to improve pathological and oncological results compared to standard APE. To obtain the same oncological advantages as extralevator APE, we have previously described a new procedure starting by a perineal approach: the supine bottom-up APE. Our objective is to compare oncological and surgical outcomes between the supine bottom-up APE and the standard APE. METHODS: All patients with low rectal adenocarcinoma requiring APE were retrospectively included and divided into 2 groups: supine bottom-up APE (Group A) and standard APE (Group B). RESULTS: From 2008 to 2016, 61 patients were divided into Groups A (n = 30) and B (n = 31). Postoperative outcomes and median length of stay were similar between groups. Patients from Group A had a significantly longer distal margin (30 [8-120] vs. 20 [1.5-60] mm, p = 0.04) and higher number of harvested lymph nodes (14.5 [0-33] vs. 11 [5-25], p = 0.03) than those from Group B. Circumferential resection margin involvement was similar between groups (28 vs. 22%, p = 0.6), whereas tumors from Group A were significantly larger and more frequently classified as T4 than those from Group B. Operative time was significantly shorter in Group A (437.5 [285-655] minutes) than in Group B (537.5 [361-721] minutes, p = 0.0009). At the end of follow-up, local recurrence occurred in 7 and 16% of patients from Groups A and B (p = 0.68). Three-year overall and disease-free survival rates were similar between groups (87 vs. 90%, p = 0.62 and 61 vs. 63%, p = 0.88, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that supine bottom-up APE doesn't impair surgical outcomes, pathological results, overall and disease-free survivals in comparison with standard APE. This new procedure may be thus safely performed and decrease the operative time. Further randomized multicentric studies are required to confirm these results.

Efficacy of transperineal minimally invasive surgery with laparoscopic abdominoperineal excision for lower rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: In abdominoperineal excision (APE), the advantages of the "down-to-up" approach are expected to be more obvious when performed as a two-team approach, including transperineal minimally invasive surgery (TpMIS). We investigated the efficacy of TpMIS with laparoscopic APE for lower rectal cancer. METHODS: Patients who underwent laparoscopic APE with (n = 20) or without (n = 30) TpMIS between December 2013 and April 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient and tumor characteristics, intraoperative outcome, short-term outcome, and pathological findings were compared. Additional subgroup analyses were performed in technically challenging cases, including male patients, obese patients, and patients with tumors located at the anterior wall. RESULTS: There was no marked difference in the patient or tumor characteristics or short-term outcomes, including morbidity and mortality between the two groups. Pathological results were comparable, and the circumferential resection margin (CRM) positive rate was 10% in both groups. TpMIS achieved a significant reduction in operative time (p = 0.02). In a subgroup analysis, the amount of blood loss was also smaller in males (p = 0.02) and patients with a high BMI (> 25) (p = 0.005) than in others. CONCLUSION: Simultaneously performing TpMIS and laparoscopic APE is feasible owing to the favorable complication and CRM-positive rates. In terms of operative time and blood loss, TpMIS is expected to be advantageous in both easy and challenging cases.

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.

Tailored concept for the plastic closure of pelvic defects resulting from extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) or pelvic exenteration.

PURPOSE: No standard exists for reconstruction after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) and pelvic exenteration. We propose a tailored concept with the use of bilateral gluteal V-Y advancement flaps in non-extended ELAPE and with vertical myocutaneous rectus abdominis muscle (VRAM) flaps in extended procedures. This retrospective study analyzes the feasibility of this concept. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrieved all consecutive patients after ELAPE or pelvic exenteration for rectal, anal, or vulva cancer with flap repair from a prospective database. Perineal wound complications were defined as the primary endpoint. Outcomes for the two different flap reconstructions were analyzed. RESULTS: From 2005 to 2021, we identified 107 patients who met the study criteria. Four patients underwent exenteration with VRAM flap repair after previous V-Y flap fashioning. Therefore, we report on 75 V-Y and 36 VRAM flaps. The V-Y group contained more rectal carcinomas, and the VRAM group exhibited more patients with recurrent cancer, more multivisceral resections, and longer operation times. Perineal wound complications occurred in 21.3% in the V-Y group and in 36.1% in the VRAM group (p = 0.097). Adjusted odds ratio for perineal wound complication was not significantly different for the two flap types. CONCLUSION: Concerning perineal wound complications, our concept yields favorable results for V-Y flap closure indicating that this less invasive approach is sufficient for non-extended ELAPE. Advantages are a shorter operation time, less donor site morbidity, and the option of a second repair. VRAM flaps were reserved for larger wounds after pelvic exenteration or vaginal repair.

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.

Long-term outcomes after extra-levator versus conventional abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Extralevator (ELAPE) and abdominoperineal excision (APE) are two major surgical approaches for low rectal cancer patients. Although excellent short-term efficacy is achieved in patients undergoing ELAPE, the long-term benefits have not been established. In this study we evaluated the safety, pathological and survival outcomes in rectal cancer patients who underwent ELAPE and APE. METHODS: One hundred fourteen patients were enrolled, including 68 in the ELAPE group and 46 in the APE group at the Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University from January 2011 to November 2020. The baseline characteristics, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) were calculated and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Demographics and tumor stage were comparable between the two groups. The 5-year PFS (67.2% versus 38.6%, log-rank P = 0.008) were significantly improved in the ELAPE group compared to the APE group, and the survival advantage was especially reflected in patients with pT3 tumors, positive lymph nodes or even those who have not received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Multivariate analysis showed that APE was an independent risk factor for OS (hazard ratio 3.000, 95% confidence interval 1.171 to 4.970, P = 0.004) and PFS (hazard ratio 2.730, 95% confidence interval 1.506 to 4.984, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION:  Compared with APE, ELAPE improved long-term outcomes for low rectal cancer patients, especially among patients with pT3 tumors, positive lymph nodes or those without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

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.

Laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision in distal rectal cancer patients: a retrospective comparative study.

BACKGROUND: At present, abdominoperineal excision with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) is one of the treatment modalities of distal rectal cancer. Our study analyzed the effects of laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal resection (ELAPE) compared with laparoscopic conventional abdominoperineal resection(cAPR) in the treatment of distal rectal cancer. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinicopathological data of 177 distal rectal cancer patients treated with a laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection between 2011 and 2018. The patients were divided into four groups as follows: ELAPE without nCRT (group A), cAPR without nCRT (group B), ELAPE with long-course nCRT (group C) and cAPR with long-course nCRT (group D). RESULTS: Positive circumferential resection margin (CRM), local recurrence rate, 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 3-year overall survival (OS) did not differ between group A and group B. The rate of positive CRM in group C was lower than group D (4.4% vs. 11.9%, respectively), although the difference was not significant (P = 0.377). The 3-year local recurrence rate in group C was lower compared with group D (6.6% vs. 16.7%, respectively), although the difference was not significant (P = 0.135). Three-year DFS and 3-year OS were not different between groups C and D. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the effect of laparoscopic ELAPE in patients with low-risk rectal cancer is similar to laparoscopic cAPR, revealing that laparoscopic cAPR can be routinely selected for patients with low-risk rectal cancer. Furthermore, laparoscopic ELAPE has a tendency to reduce the rate of positive CRM and local recurrence in patients with high-risk rectal cancer. Laparoscopic ELAPE can be routinely considered for patients with high-risk rectal cancer.

A comparison of oncological outcomes after abdominoperineal excision before and after the implementation of a selective perineal flap closure program.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Abdominoperineal excision (APE) is the operation chosen when a patient has low rectal cancer unamenable to sphincter preserving surgery. Perineal flap reconstruction is associated with less wound morbidity but little is known about oncological outcomes. The objective was to compare outcomes in patients undergoing APE before and after the introduction of a program that utilized flap reconstruction of the perineum. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was performed. Patients who underwent APE followed by primary closure or flap reconstruction between 1998 and 2018 were selected. The cohorts were divided according to the implementation of the flap reconstruction program in July 2009. Clinicopathological data, recurrence and survival were compared between the cohorts. RESULTS: One hundred and forty nine patients underwent APE for rectal adenocarcinoma between 1998 and 2018. There were 57 patients in the pre-flap era and 92 in the post-flap era. Forty-six patients underwent flap reconstruction in the latter cohort (50%). More patients in the post-flap era underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (85.9% vs. 63.2%; p < .01). Margin positivity rates decreased from 21.1% in the pre-flap era to 10.9% in the post-flap era (p = .10) and there was an associated improvement in incidence and time to local recurrence (p = .03). CONCLUSION: The use of perineal flap reconstruction is associated with a longer median time to local recurrence. Perineal flap reconstruction may contribute to reduced margin positivity.

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.

Comparison of perineal morbidity between biologic mesh reconstruction and primary closure following extralevator abdominoperineal excision: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for rectal cancer leaves a greater perineal defect which might result in significant perineal morbidity, and how to effectively close perineal defects remains a challenge for surgeons. This study aimed to comparatively evaluate the perineal-related complications of biologic mesh reconstruction and primary closure following ELAPE. METHOD: The electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched to screen out all eligible studies, which compared biologic mesh reconstruction with primary closure for perineal-related complications following ELAPE. Pooled data of perineal-related complications including overall wound complications, hernia, infection, dehiscence, chronic sinus, and chronic pain (12 months after surgery) were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of four studies (one randomized controlled trial and three cohort studies) involving 544 patients (346 biologic mesh vs 198 primary closure) were included. With a median follow-up of 18.5 months (range, 2-71.5 months). Analysis of the pooled data indicated that the perineal hernia rate was significantly lower in biologic mesh reconstruction as compared to primary closure (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.22-0.69; P = 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of total perineal wound complications rate (P = 0.70), as well as rates of perineal wound infection (P = 0.97), wound dehiscence (P = 0.43), chronic sinus (P = 0.28), and chronic pain (12 months after surgery; P = 0.75). CONCLUSION: Biologic mesh reconstruction after extralevator abdominoperineal excision appears to have a lower hernia rate, with no differences in perineal wound complications.

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.

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.

Biological mesh reconstruction versus primary closure for preventing perineal morbidity after extralevator abdominoperineal excision: a multicentre retrospective study.

AIM: The aim of the study was to compare the incidence of perineal hernia and the perineal wound morbidity following extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) between two groups - primary perineal closure and reconstruction with a biological mesh. METHOD: One hundred and forty-seven consecutive patients who underwent ELAPE for primary rectal cancer between January 2007 and December 2018 in two tertiary referral centres were retrospectively identified from prospective databases. Perineal closure was carried out via primary closure or with a biological mesh (porcine dermal collagen mesh). Outcome measures were perineal hernia and perineal wound morbidity (infection, dehiscence, persistent sinus and chronic pain). RESULTS: A total of 139 patients were included in the study. A prophylactic mesh was used in 80 (57.5%) and primary closure was practised in 59 (42.4%) patients. The median follow-up was 30 (interquartile range 46.88) months. Thirty patients (21.6%) developed perineal hernia. No significant differences were found between prophylactic mesh and primary closure (16.3% vs 23.3%, P = 0.07). The median period between surgery and hernia diagnosis was 8 months in the primary closure group and 24 months in the mesh group (P < 0.01). Perineal wound morbidity was significantly higher in the prophylactic mesh group (55% vs 33.9%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: In our study, the use of a biological mesh did not reduce the rate of perineal hernia, although it did delay its appearance. Perineal closure using a biological mesh may increase perineal morbidity, both acute and chronic.

Laparoscopic subtotal colectomy with double-end ileosigmoidostomy in right iliac fossa facilitates second-stage surgery in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus about the most appropriate management of rectal stump in laparoscopic subtotal colectomy (STC) performed for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The objective is to report our experience of laparoscopic STC with double-end ileosigmoidostomy in the right iliac fossa for IBD. METHODS: All patients undergoing laparoscopic STC and double-end ileosigmoidostomy in the right iliac fossa for IBD in 2 European expert centres were included. RESULTS: From 1999 to 2017, laparoscopic STC and double-end ileosigmoidostomy in right iliac fossa was performed in 213 consecutive patients, including 74 patients in an emergency setting (35%). Conversion to laparotomy was necessary in 9 patients (4%). One patient died postoperatively (0.5%). Postoperative morbidity occurred in 53 patients (25%) after STC, and was major in 18 patients (8%). A second stage was performed in 199 patients (94%), with a mean delay of 4.7 ± 6 months (range 1.4-77). The second stage was an ileorectal anastomosis (n = 50/199; 25%), performed by an elective open incision in the right iliac fossa in 68% of cases; an ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) (n = 139; 70%) successfully performed by laparoscopy in 96% of cases; or an abdominoperineal excision with end ileostomy (n = 10; 5%) successfully performed by laparoscopy in 8 cases. After this second stage, postoperative morbidity occurred in 53 patients (27%), and was major in 15 patients (8%). After a mean follow-up of 3.7 ± 3 years (range 0.1-15), stoma rate (end ileostomy and diverting stoma not closed) was 17%, and small bowel obstruction and incisional hernia occurred in 10 (5%) and 25 (12%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic STC and double-end ileosigmoidostomy in right iliac fossa is safe, feasible, and facilitates the second stage for intestinal continuity by either elective incision or laparoscopy in 100% of ileorectal anastomoses and by laparoscopy in 96% of IPAA.

Transperineal minimally invasive APE: preliminary outcomes in a multicenter cohort.

BACKGROUND: Abdominoperineal excision (APE) for rectal cancer is associated with a relatively high risk of positive margins and postoperative morbidity, particularly related to perineal wound healing problems. It is unknown whether the use of a minimally invasive approach for the perineal part of these procedures can improve postoperative outcomes without oncological compromise. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of minimally invasive transperineal abdominoperineal excision (TpAPE) METHODS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study included all patients having TpAPE for primary low rectal cancer. The primary endpoint was the intraoperative complication rate. Secondary endpoints included major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3), histopathology results, and perineal wound healing. RESULTS: A total of 32 TpAPE procedures were performed in five centers. A bilateral extralevator APE (ELAPE) was performed in 17 patients (53%), a unilateral ELAPE in 7 (22%), and an APE in 8 (25%). Intraoperative complications occurred in five cases (16%) and severe postoperative morbidity in three cases (9%). There were no perioperative deaths. A positive margin (R1) was observed in four patients (13%) and specimen perforation occurred in two (6%). The unilateral extralevator TpAPE group had worse specimen quality and a higher proportion of R1 resections than the bilateral ELAPE or standard APE groups. The rate of uncomplicated perineal wound healing was 53% (n = 17) and three patients (9%) required surgical reintervention. CONCLUSIONS: TpAPE seems to be feasible with acceptable perioperative morbidity and a relatively low rate of perineal wound dehiscence, while histopathological outcomes remain suboptimal. Additional evaluation of the viability of this technique is needed in the form of a prospective trial with standardization of the procedure, indication, audit of outcomes and performed by surgeons with vast experience in transanal total mesorectal excision.

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.