Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2014 Aug 27:14:58.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2482-14-58.

Randomized controlled multicentre study comparing biological mesh closure of the pelvic floor with primary perineal wound closure after extralevator abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer (BIOPEX-study)

Gijsbert D Musters, Willem A Bemelman, Robbert J I Bosker, Jacobus W A Burger, Peter van Duijvendijk, Boudewijn van Etten, Anna A W van Geloven, Eelco J R de Graaf, Christiaan Hoff, Niels de Korte, Jeroen W A Leijtens, Harm J T Rutten, Baljit Singh, Anthony van de Ven, Ronald J C L M Vuylsteke, Johannes H W de Wilt, Marcel G W Dijkgraaf, Pieter J Tanis  1
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Randomized controlled multicentre study comparing biological mesh closure of the pelvic floor with primary perineal wound closure after extralevator abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer (BIOPEX-study)

Gijsbert D Musters et al. BMC Surg. .

Abstract

Background: Primary perineal wound closure after conventional abdominoperineal resection (cAPR) for rectal cancer has been the standard of care for many years. Since the introduction of neo-adjuvant radiotherapy and the extralevator APR (eAPR), oncological outcome has been improved, but at the cost of increased rates of perineal wound healing problems and perineal hernia. This has progressively increased the use of biological meshes, although not supported by sufficient evidence. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of pelvic floor reconstruction using a biological mesh after standardized eAPR with neo-adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy compared to primary perineal wound closure.

Methods/design: In this multicentre randomized controlled trial, patients with a clinical diagnosis of primary rectal cancer who are scheduled for eAPR after neo-adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy will be considered eligible. Exclusion criteria are prior radiotherapy, sacral resection above S4/S5, allergy to pig products or polysorbate, collagen disorders, and severe systemic diseases affecting wound healing, except for diabetes. After informed consent, 104 patients will be randomized between standard care using primary wound closure of the perineum and the experimental arm consisting of suturing a biological mesh derived from porcine dermis in the pelvic floor defect, followed by perineal closure similar to the control arm. Patients will be followed for one year after the intervention and outcome assessors and patients will be blinded for the study treatment. The primary endpoint is the percentage of uncomplicated perineal wound healing, defined as a Southampton wound score of less than II on day 30. Secondary endpoints are hospital stay, incidence of perineal hernia, quality of life, and costs.

Discussion: The BIOPEX-study is the first randomized controlled multicentre study to determine the additive value of using a biological mesh for perineal wound closure after eAPR with neo-adjuvant radiotherapy compared to primary perineal wound closure with regard to perineal wound healing and the occurrence of perineal hernia.

Trail registration number: NCT01927497 (Clinicaltrial.gov).

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow-diagram. eAPR: abdominal perineal resection.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Den Dulk M, Putter H, Collette L, Marijnen CA, Folkesson J, Bosset JF, Rödel C, Bujko K, Påhlman L, van de Velde CJ. The abdominoperineal resection itself is associated with an adverse outcome: the European experience based on a pooled analysis of five European randomised clinical trials on rectal cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:1175–1183. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.11.039. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Stelzner S, Koehler C, Stelzer J, Sims A, Witzigmann H. Extended abdominoperineal excision vs. standard abdominoperineal excision in rectal cancer–a systematic overview. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2011;26:1227–1240. doi: 10.1007/s00384-011-1235-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bullard KM, Trudel JL, Baxter NN, Rothenberger DA. Primary perineal wound closure after preoperative radiotherapy and abdominoperineal resection has a high incidence of wound failure. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48:438–443. doi: 10.1007/s10350-004-0827-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. El-Gazzaz G, Kiran RP, Lavery I. Wound complications in rectal cancer patients undergoing primary closure of the perineal wound after abdominoperineal resection. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52:1962–1966. doi: 10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181b71ef9. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Nissan A, Guillem JG, Paty PB, Douglas WW, Minsky B, Saltz L, Cohen AM. Abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer at a specialty center. Dis Colon Rectum. 2001;44:27–35. doi: 10.1007/BF02234816. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data