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.
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

Abdomen/surgery* ; Humans ; Laparoscopy/methods* ; Pelvic Floor/surgery* ; Perineum/surgery* ; Proctectomy ; Rectal Neoplasms/surgery*

Objective: To compare the morbidity of perineum-related complication between biological mesh and primary closure in closing pelvic floor defects following extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE). Methods: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wanfang database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP database, and China Biological Medicine database for published clinical researches on perineum-related complications following ELAPE between January 2007 and August 2020. Literature inclusion criteria: (1) study subjects: patients undergoing ELAPE with rectal cancers confirmed by colonoscopy pathological biopsy or surgical pathology; (2) study types: randomized controlled studies or observational studies comparing the postoperative perineum-related complications between the two groups (primary perineal closure and reconstruction with a biological mesh) following ELAPE; (3) intervention measures: biological mesh reconstruction used as the treatment group, and primary closure used as the control group; (4) outcome measures: the included literatures should at least include one of the following postoperative perineal complications: overall perineal wound complications, perineal wound infection, perineal wound dehiscence, perineal hernia, chronic sinus, chronic perineal pain (postoperative 12-month), urinary dysfunction and sexual dysfunction. Literature exclusion criteria: (1) data published repeatedly; (2) study with incomplete or wrong original data and unable to obtain original data. Two reviewers independently performed screening, data extraction and assessment on the quality of included studies. Review Manager 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis. The mobidities of perineum-related complications, including overall perineal wound (infection, dehiscence, hernia, chronic sinus) and perineal chronic pain (postoperative 12-month), were compared between the two pelvic floor reconstruction methods. Finally, publication bias was assessed, and sensitivity analysis was used to evaluate the stability of the results. Results: A total of five studies, including two randomized controlled studies and three observational controlled studies, with 650 patients (399 cases in the biological mesh group and 251 cases in primary closure group) were finally included. Compared with primary closure, biological mesh reconstruction had significantly lower ratio of perineal hernia (RR=0.37, 95%CI: 0.21-0.64, P<0.001). No significant differences in ratios of overall perineal wound complication, perineal wound infection, perineal wound dehiscence, perineal chronic sinus and perineal chronic pain (postoperative 12-month) were found between the two groups (all P>0.05). Conclusion: Compared with primary closure, pelvic floor reconstruction following ELAPE with biological mesh has the advantage of a lower incidence of perineal hernia.
Humans ; Pelvic Floor/surgery* ; Perineum/surgery* ; Proctectomy ; Rectum/surgery* ; Surgical Mesh

BackgroundThe introduction of individualized abdominoperineal excision (APE) may minimize operative trauma and reduce the rate of complications. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of individualized APE for low rectal cancer.

MethodsFifty-six patients who underwent individualized APE from June 2011 to June 2015 were evaluated retrospectively in Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University. The main outcome measures were circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement, intraoperative perforation, postoperative complications, and local recurrence. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 16.0.

ResultsFifty (89%) patients received preoperative chemoradiotherapy: 51 (91%) patients were treated with the sacrococcyx preserved; 27 (48%) patients with the levator ani muscle partially preserved bilaterally; 20 (36%) patients with the levator ani muscle partially preserved unilaterally and the muscle on the opposite side totally preserved; 7 (13%) patients with intact levator ani muscle and part of the ischioanal fat bilaterally dissected; and 2 (4%) patients with part of the ischioanal fat and intact lavator ani muscle dissected unilaterally and the muscle on the opposite side partially preserved. The most common complications included sexual dysfunction (12%), perineal wound complications (13%), urinary retention (7%), and chronic perineal pain (5%). A positive CRM was demonstrated in 3 (5%) patients, and intraoperative perforations occurred in 2 (4%) patients. On multiple logistic regression analysis, longer operative time (P = 0.032) and more intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.006) were significantly associated with perineal procedure-related complications. The local recurrence was 4% at a median follow-up of 53 months (range: 30-74 months).

ConclusionWith preoperative chemoradiotherapy, individualized APE may be a relatively safe and feasible approach for low rectal cancer with acceptable oncological outcomes.

Aged ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local ; pathology ; surgery ; Operative Time ; Perineum ; surgery ; Postoperative Complications ; Rectal Neoplasms ; pathology ; surgery ; Rectum ; surgery ; Retrospective Studies ; Treatment Outcome

OBJECTIVEThe aim of this study is to introduce a new type of cross suture in closing peritoneal incision after abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer.

METHODSThis new type of cross suture was firstly proposed and applied in a small cohort in our hospital. In this study, we reported its efficacy and safety. From Feb 2018 to May 2018, 8 cases (5 male, 3 female) of rectal cancer from the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University receiving APR with new cross suture, were analyzed retrospectively. The median age was 45.5 years and the median distance between tumor distant border and anal verge was 2.5 cm. Three patients received neoadjuvant therapy. The detailed procedures of new cross suture are listed as follows: (1)Marking the margin: an oval circle around the anus is designed. The anterior incision reaches middle peritoneum, and the posterior incision is close to the coccyx apex. Two triangle incisions are made at the 3 and 9 point directions of lithotomy position, respectively. (2)Tumor resection: purse string suture is made to close the anus, then cut open the peritoneal skin and fatty tissue according to the principles of total mesorectal resection(TME). Reserve the fatty tissue in the ischiorectal space as much as possible. R0 resection is required. Approximate the pelvic muscles and fatty tissue in the ischiorectal space to reduce residual cavity; (3)Close the peritoneal incision by absorbable stitch: Two intracutaneous stiches in the anterior and posterior parts of the incision are made. Then four intracutaneous circle stiches along the two triangles are performed. The incision appears like a "cross" after tighting these stiches. A drainage was placed in presacral space.

RESULTSAll procedures were successfully conducted in 8 cases and no severe complication occurred after surgery. The median volume of whole surgery bleeding was 100 ml and the median time of the peritoneal surgery was 50 minutes. The median volume of drainage was 95 ml in the first 3 postoperative days. The median time of drainage removal was 5 days. Seven cases received primary wound healing without superficial(wound infection and dehiscence) or deep perineal wound(perineal abscess and presacral abscess) complications. Presacral abscess occurred in one case. The median time of primary wound healing was 11 days.

CONCLUSIONThe new cross suture for perineal incision after APR procedure is simple with satisfying efficacy. The drainage of residue cavity in the presacral space is complete. The cross suture reduces the time of primary wound healing and decreases scars.

Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Perineum ; surgery ; Rectal Neoplasms ; surgery ; Retrospective Studies ; Suture Techniques ; Sutures

OBJECTIVETo explore the effect of continuous negative pressure drainage with intermittent irrigation on surgical site infection (SSI) after laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excison (ELAPE).

METHODSClinical data of 28 rectal cancer patients who underwent continuous negative pressure drainage with intermittent irrigation following laparoscopic ELAPE (negative irrigation group) at our department from March 2016 to August 2017 were analyzed retrospectively. At the same time, 32 rectal cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic ELAPE and simple presacral drainage from January 2014 to February 2016 were included as controls (simple drainage group). Self-made double cannula: one silicon rubber drainage tube was used; 3 side holes were cut at the front end with 1-2 cm interval; tube was ranked intermittently and oppositely; a small hole was cut in the middle of rear; the infusion tube was placed through the small hole to the front side of the drainage tube (to rinse when the drainage was turbid). The placement and use of self-made double cannula: it was placed in the presacral space and was drawn from the medial to the sciatic tubercle, then was connected to drainage bag for 24 hours; when no blood was observed, the drainage tube was connected to negative pressure drainage ball, keeping negative pressure status. The development of SSI within 30 days postoperatively and other perioperative parameters were compared between the two groups.

RESULTSThere were no statistically significant differences in baseline data between two groups (all P>0.05). Incidence of SSI in negative irrigation group was significantly lower than that in simple drainage group [14.3% (4/28) vs. 43.8% (14/32), χ=6.173, P=0.013]. Additionally, a shorter postoperative hospital stay was observed in negative irrigation group [(9.8±1.5) days vs. (11.4±2.6) days, t=2.918, P=0.005]. Besides, other perioperative parameters, including operative time, intraoperative blood loss, time to removal of drainage tube, etc were not significantly different between two groups (all P>0.05). After adjusting to confounders, multivariate analysis showed that negative pressure drainage was an independent protective factor for SSI following laparoscopic ELAPE (OR=0.214, 95%CI:0.060-0.762, P=0.002).

CONCLUSIONContinuous negative pressure drainage with intermittent irrigation can effectively decrease the incidence of SSI following laparoscopic ELAPE, and is safe and simple.

Drainage ; methods ; Humans ; Laparoscopy ; Perineum ; Rectal Neoplasms ; surgery ; Retrospective Studies ; Surgical Wound Infection ; therapy ; Treatment Outcome

OBJECTIVETo evaluate the efficacy of extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) of rectal cancer.

METHODSPubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase database were searched for clinical studies comparing the ELAPE and abdominoperineal excision (APE) for rectal cancer between 2007 and 2016. Two reviewers independently screened the articles and extracted the data. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the observational studies and the score more than 5 points was the inclusion criteria. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions v5.1.0 was used to evaluate the quality of the randomized controlled trials (RCT). Intra-operative perforation rate, circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement, local recurrence rate, perineal wound complications were brought into meta-analysis by Review Manager 5.3 software.

RESULTSA total of 556 articles were retrieved and 12 articles were enrolled finally, including 11 observational studies and 1 RCT study. All the 12 articles were high quality (scores of all observational studies were more than 11 points, RCT study accorded with 6 criteria of the quality evaluation). A total of 3 788 patients were enrolled, including 2 141 cases of ELAPE and 1 647 cases of APE. Meta-analysis revealed that intra-operative perforation rate of ELAPE was lower than APE (RR=0.52, 95%CI:0.34-0.79, P=0.002). There were no significant differences between two groups in CRM involvement (RR=0.72, 95%CI:0.49-1.07, P=0.10), local recurrence rate (OR=0.55, 95%CI:0.24-1.29, P=0.17) and perineal wound complications (RR=0.94, 95%CI:0.58-1.53, P=0.800).

CONCLUSIONSCompared with APE, ELAPE reduces the intra-operative perforation rate, and does not increase the perineal wound complications, but it has no advantages in decreasing the CRM involvement and local recurrence rate.

Abdomen ; surgery ; Digestive System Surgical Procedures ; adverse effects ; methods ; Humans ; Intraoperative Complications ; epidemiology ; Margins of Excision ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local ; epidemiology ; Perineum ; surgery ; Postoperative Complications ; epidemiology ; Rectal Neoplasms ; surgery ; Rectum ; surgery

Objective: To explore the effect of spermatic vein ligation under the microscope in the treatment of varicocele (VC). METHODS: A total of 120 VC patients received in our department from September 2011 to February 2015 were randomly divided into an experimental and a control group of equal number, the former treated by microscopic spermatic vein ligation and the latter by conventional open high ligation. Comparisons were made between the two groups of patients in the internal diameters of the spermatic vein during eupnea and Valsalva maneuver, the reflux time of the spermatic vein, blood flow parameters of the testicular artery, and semen quality before and at 3 months after surgery. RESULTS: At 3 months after surgery, the experimental group, as compared with the control, showed significantly decreased reflux time of the spermatic vein (［0.41 ± 0.10］ vs ［1.08 ± 0.10］ s, P <0.05) and peak systolic velocity (9.26 ± 1.35 vs 10.64 ± 1.28, P <0.05) and resistance index (0.52 ± 0.03 vs 0.61 ± 0.03, P <0.05) of the testicular artery but markedly increased internal diameters of the spermatic vein during eupnea (［1.63 ± 0.07］ vs ［1.59 ± 0.06］ mm, P <0.05) and Valsalva maneuver (［1.72 ± 0.05］ vs ［1.68 ± 0.07］ mm, P <0.05), sperm concentration (［46.84 ± 5.24］ vs ［35.35 ± 4.26］ ×10⁶/ml, P <0.05), sperm motility (［63.75 ± 7.73］ vs ［53.87 ± 6.46］ %, P <0.05), and total sperm count (［89.54 ± 7.95］ vs ［75.24 ± 8.43］ ×10⁶/ml, P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS Microscopic spermatic vein ligation has a definite effect in the treatment of varicocele, which can significantly improve the testicular blood flow and semen quality of the patient.
Humans ; Ligation ; methods ; Male ; Perineum ; Semen Analysis ; Sperm Count ; Sperm Motility ; Spermatic Cord ; blood supply ; Spermatozoa ; Testis ; blood supply ; Varicocele ; surgery ; Veins ; surgery

OBJECTIVETo evaluate the factors affecting perineal incision complications after abdominperineal excision(APE) for rectal cancer.

METHODSThis was a retrospective study of 167 patients with rectal cancer undergoing APE at Peking University People's Hospital between October 1998 and December 2013. Chi-square test and multivariate Logistic regression analysis were used to identify risk factors.

RESULTSThe overall rate of perineal incision complication was 24.6%(41/167) including 7 cases of incision infection, 10 cases of incision fat liquefaction, 21 cases of poor wound healing, 2 cases of incision fistula, 1 case of incision dehiscence. In univariate analysis, the risk factors associated with perineal incision complication were operating time≥280 minutes(P=0.005), blood loss≥350 ml(P=0.017) and the protective factors associated with perineal incision complication were the procedure of APE (P=0.048), intraperitoneal chemotherapy with 5-FU sustained release (P=0.014), lymph node metastasis (P=0.006), while gender, age, BMI, ASA score, other complications, distance from distal tumor to anal verge, preoperative radiochemotherapy, postoperative stay in ICU, total drainage volume 3 days before operation, tumor differentiation, and postoperative TNM staging were not associated with perineal incision complication(all P>0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified two independent risk factors: operating time≥280 minutes(OR=5.217, 95% CI:1.250 - 6.234, P=0.000), intraperitoneal chemotherapy with 5-FU sustained release(OR=3.284, 95% CI:1.156 - 9.334, P=0.026).

CONCLUSIONSOperating time≥280 minutes and intraperitoneal chemotherapy with 5-FU sustained release are independent risk factors for perineal incision complications after APE for rectal cancer. For patients receiving APE procedure, intraperitoneal chemotherapy with 5-FU sustained release should be used with caution, and the operative time should be reduced when possible.

Abdomen ; surgery ; Digestive System Surgical Procedures ; adverse effects ; Humans ; Neoplasm Staging ; Operative Time ; Perineum ; surgery ; Postoperative Complications ; epidemiology ; Rectal Neoplasms ; surgery ; Rectum ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Factors ; Surgical Wound Infection ; epidemiology

OBJECTIVETo explore the feasibility and safety of transperineal single-port laparoscopy assisted exralevator abdominoperineal excision(TPSP-ELAPE).

METHODSThree cases (2 males and 1 female) who underwent TPSP-ELAPE at lithotomy position in the Peking University People's Hospital from January to February 2016 were analyzed retrospectively. The mean age was(55.3±7.2) years. Mean body mass index (BMI) was (23.0±1.3) kg/m(2). Mean distance between tumor and anal verge was (1.8±0.3) cm. Abdominal procedure was done firstly and then perineal procedure under lithotomy position. Abdominal procedure was performed by routine laparoscopy with 5 trocars. TPSP-ELAPE procedure was performed in perineal procedure. The perineal defect was closed by purse string, followed by spindle incision around the anus. Perianal skin and subcutaneous tissue was dissected until the junction between extra anal sphincter and levator ani muscle under direct vision. Perineal skin was sutured with double purse string by 2-0 prolene, and single port canal was placed inside in order to close perineal defect. The pneumoperitoneal pressure was set to 10 mmHg and laparoscopy and instrument was placed through the single-port canal. Space between isochioanal fossa and levator ani muscle was exposed by the contraction of laparoscopic clam. Lateral and posterior side was mobilized firstly. The anterior was dissected under the help of vaginal examination and contraction by abdominal group. The levator ani muscle was divided near the initial site, and negative resection margin was confirmed in the operation. Specimen was exteriorized through the perineum.

RESULTSThe mean intraoperative blood loss of three cases was (123.3±25.2) ml. The total operative time was (296.7±25.1) minutes. The time used by the perineal group was (196.7±20.8) minutes. The volume of drainage was (39.0±10.1) ml at the third day after operation. The time to first stoma output was (2.3±0.6) days. The perineal drainage removal time was (7.7±0.6) days. The circumferential resection margins were negative in all specimens, and there were no perioperative complications.

CONCLUSIONTPSP-ELAPE is feasible and safe, which could avoid turning over the patient and facilitate anesthesia. It follows the anatomic plane of open ELAPE procedure with minimally invasive advantage.

Anal Canal ; Blood Loss, Surgical ; Digestive System Surgical Procedures ; methods ; Feasibility Studies ; Female ; Humans ; Laparoscopy ; methods ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Operative Time ; Pelvic Floor ; Perineum ; surgery ; Rectal Neoplasms ; surgery ; Retrospective Studies ; Surgical Stomas