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
. 2023 Aug 22;38(1):220.
doi: 10.1007/s00384-023-04507-5.

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

Ahmed Gendia  1 , Masood Rehman  2 , Cindy W Lin  2 , Kamran Malik  2 , Khalil Khalil  2 , Ugo Ihedioha  2 , Peter Kang  2 , John Evans  2 , Jamil Ahmed  2
Affiliations

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

Ahmed Gendia et al. Int J Colorectal Dis. .

Abstract

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.

Keywords: APR; Colorectal surgery; ELAPR; Mesh reconstruction; Perineal hernia; Quality of life.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Perry WB, Connaughton JC (2007) Abdominoperineal resection: how is it done and what are the results? Clin Colon Rectal Surg 20(3):213–220 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Corman ML (1980) Classic articles in colonic and rectal surgery. A method of performing abdominoperineal excision for carcinoma of the rectum and of the terminal portion of the pelvic colon: by W. Ernest Miles, 1869–1947. Dis Colon Rectum 23(3):202–205
    1. Abou-Zeid AA, Ghamrini YE, Youssef T (2015) The combined abdominal and perineal approach for dissection of the lower rectum. The development of new indications. Int J Surg (London, England) 13:217–220
    1. Xanthis A, Greenberg D, Jha B, Olafimihan O, Miller R, Fearnhead N, Davies J, Hall N (2018) Local recurrence after ‘standard’ abdominoperineal resection: do we really need ELAPE? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 100(2):111–115 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Huang A, Zhao H, Ling T, Quan Y, Zheng M, Feng B (2014) Oncological superiority of extralevator abdominoperineal resection over conventional abdominoperineal resection: a meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 29(3):321–327 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources