Summary of experience with patterning cropped and shaped mesh repair for perineal hernia after abdominoperineal excision in rectal cancer.
10.3760/cma.j.cn112139-20230130-00040
- Author:
Yi Ping CHEN
1
;
Xiang ZHANG
1
;
Chun Zhong LIN
1
;
Guo Zhong LIU
1
;
Shan Geng WENG
1
Author Information
1. Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Hernia Surgery, Fujian Abdominal Surgery Research Institute, the First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, The National Regional Medical Center of Binhai Hospital, the First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou 350005, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH:
Male;
Female;
Humans;
Animals;
Herniorrhaphy/methods*;
Surgical Mesh;
Retrospective Studies;
Hernia, Abdominal/surgery*;
Hernia;
Rectal Neoplasms/surgery*;
Proctectomy;
Laparoscopy;
Perineum/surgery*;
Postoperative Complications;
Incisional Hernia/surgery*;
Hominidae
- From:
Chinese Journal of Surgery
2023;61(6):486-492
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective: To examine the patterning cropped and shaped mesh repair for perineal hernia after abdominoperineal excision (APE) in rectal cancer. Methods: The clinical data of 8 patients with perineal hernia after APE who accepted surgical treatment in the Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Hernia Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University from March 2017 to December 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. There were 3 males and 5 females, aged (67.6±7.2) years (range: 56 to 76 years). Eight patients developed a perineal mass at (11.3±2.9) months (range: 5 to 13 months) after APE. After surgical separation of adhesion and exposing the pelvic floor defect, a 15 cm×20 cm anti-adhesion mesh was fashioned as a three-dimensional pocket shape to fit the pelvic defect, then fixed to the promontory or sacrum and sutured to the pelvic sidewalls and the anterior peritoneum, while two side slender slings were tailored in front of the mesh and fixed on the pectineal ligament. Results: The repair of their perineal hernias went well, with an operating time of (240.6±48.8) minutes (range: 155 to 300 minutes). Five patients underwent laparotomy, 3 patients tried laparoscopic surgery first and then transferred to laparotomy combined with the perineal approach. Intraoperative bowel injury was observed in 3 patients. All patients did not have an intestinal fistula, bleeding occurred. No reoperation was performed and their preoperative symptoms improved significantly. The postoperative hospital stay was (13.5±2.9) days (range: 7 to 17 days) and two patients had postoperative ileus, which improved after conservative treatment. Two patients had a postoperative perineal hernia sac effusion, one of them underwent placement of a tube to puncture the hernia sac effusion due to infection, and continued irrigation and drainage. The postoperative follow-up was (34.8±14.0) months (range: 13 to 48 months), and 1 patient developed recurrence in the seventh postoperative month, no further surgery was performed. Conclusions: Surgical repair of the perineal hernia after APE can be preferred transabdominal approach, routine application of laparoscopy is not recommended, combined abdominoperineal approach can be considered if necessary. The perineal hernia after APE can be repaired safely and effectively using the described technique of patterning cropped and shaped mesh repair.
