Abstract
Background
Perineal wound healing is a significant challenge after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) due to a high rate of wound breakdown. Negative pressure therapy has proven benefits in open wounds, and recently a negative pressure system has been developed for use on closed wounds at high risk of breakdown, such as apronectomy and hysterectomy. The aim of the present study was to determine whether negative pressure therapy applied to closed perineal wounds after ELAPE improved wound healing and compare outcomes to the published literature and outcomes from a historical cohort of patients who had undergone ‘standard’ abdominoperineal resection (APR) and primary closure of the perineal wounds.
Methods
Prospective data on consecutive patients having ELAPE in the period from November 2012 to April 2015 were collected. The pelvic floor defect was reconstructed with biologic mesh. The adipose tissue layer was closed with vicryl sutures, a suction drain was left in the deep layer, the subcuticular layer and skin were closed, and the negative pressure system was applied. Any wound breakdown within the first 30 days postoperatively was recorded.
Results
Of the 32 consecutive ELAPE patients whose perineal wounds were closed within 30 days with the use of the negative pressure system, there was 1 patient with major perineal wound breakdown and 2 patients with a 1 cm superficial wound defect, which needed no further treatment. In the remaining 29 (90 %) patients, the perineal wounds healed fully without complications. Twenty-five patients underwent standard APR in 2010–2011 with primary closure of their perineal wounds. Ten out of 25(40 %) of patients who had undergone standard APR and primary closure of perineal wounds had major wound complications (p = 0.01).
Conclusions
Our results suggest that after ELAPE the application of a negative pressure system to the perineal wound closed with biologic mesh may reduce perineal wound complications and may reduce the need for major perineal reconstruction.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Martijnse ISMD, Holman FMD, Nieuwenhuijzen GAPPD, Rutten HJTPD, Nienhuijs SWPD (2012) Perineal hernia repair after abdominoperineal rectal excision. Dis Colon Rectum 55:90–95
Stelzner S, Koehler C, Stelzer J, Sims A, Witzigmann H (2011) Extended abdominoperineal excision vs. standard abdominoperineal excision in rectal cancer—a systematic overview. Int J Colorectal Dis 26:1227–1240
West NP, Anderin C, Smith KJE, Holm T, Quirke P (2010) Multicentre experience with extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer. Br J Surg 97:588–599
Christensen HK, Nerstrom P, Tei T, Laurberg S (2011) Perineal repair after extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 54:711–717
McMenamin DM, Clements D, Edwards TJ, Fitton AR, Douie WJP (2011) Rectus abdominis myocutaneous flaps for perineal reconstruction: modifications to the technique based on a large single-centre experience. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 93:375–381
Foster J, Pathak S, Smart NJ et al (2012) Reconstruction of the perineum following extra levator abdomino perineal excision for carcinoma of the lower rectum–a systematic review. Colorectal Dis 14:1052–1059
Bellows CF, Smith A, Malsbury J, Helton WS (2013) Repair of incisional hernias with biological prosthesis: a systematic review of current evidence. Am J Surg 205:85–101
Peppas G, Gkegkes ID, Makris MC, Falagas ME (2010) Biological mesh in hernia repair, abdominal wall defects, and reconstruction and treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a review of the clinical evidence. Am Surg 76:1290–1299
Condé-Green A, Chung TL, Holton LH et al (2013) Incisional negative-pressure wound therapy versus conventional dressings following abdominal wall reconstruction. A comparative study. Ann Plast Surg 71:394–397
Glass GE, Murphy GF, Esmaeili A, Lai LM, Nanchahal J (2014) Systematic review of molecular mechanism of action of negative-pressure wound therapy. Br J Surg 101:1627–1636
Tiwari S, Chauhan M, Shahapurkar VV et al (2014) Importance of Southhampton wound grading system in surgical site infection. JEMDS 3:5491–5495
Stelzner S, Holm T, Moran BJ et al (2011) Deep pelvic anatomy revisited for a description of crucial steps in extralevator abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 54:947–957
De Nardi P, Summo V, Vignali A, Capretti G (2015) Standard versus extralevator abdominoperineal low rectal cancer excision outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 22:2997–3006
Bullard KM, Trudel JL, Baxter NN, Rothenberger DA (2005) Primary perineal wound closure after preoperative radiotherapy and abdominoperineal resection has a high incidence of wound failure. Dis Colon Rectum 48:438–443
Chadwick MA, Vieten D, Pettitt E, Dixon AR, Roe AM (2006) Short course preoperative radiotherapy is the single most important risk factor for perineal wound complications after abdominoperineal excision of the rectum. Colorectal Dis 8:756–761
Holm T, Ljung A, Haggmark T, Jurell G, Lagergren J (2007) Extended abdomino perineal resection with gluteus maximus flap reconstruction of the pelvic floor for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 94:232–238
Haapamäki MM, Pihlgren V, Lundberg O, Sandzén B, Rutegård J (2011) Physical performance and quality of life after extended abdominoperineal excision of rectum and reconstruction of the pelvic floor with gluteus maximus flap. Dis Colon Rectum 54:101–106
Nisar PJ, Scott HJ (2009) Myocutaneous flap reconstruction of the pelvis after abdomino perineal excision. Colorectal Dis 11:806–816
Hisham Z, Butt HZ, Salem MK, Vijaynagar B, Chaudhri S, Singh B (2013) Perineal reconstruction after extra-levator abdominoperineal excision (eLAPE): a systematic review. Int J Colorectal Dis 28:1459–1468
Chadi SA, Kidane B, Britto K, Brackstone M, Ott MC (2014) Incisonal negative pressure wound therapy decreases the frequency of post operative perineal surgical site infections: a cohort study. Dis Colon Rectum 57:999–1006
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This study includes the outcome of our experience for treating patients with rectal cancer and the article does not contain any studies with directly involving human participants performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all participants who directly involved in the study and additional informed consent was obtained from all individual participants for whom identifying information is included in this article.
Additional information
A. Lyons and A. Pullyblank have contributed equally in the manuscript.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sumrien, H., Newman, P., Burt, C. et al. The use of a negative pressure wound management system in perineal wound closure after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for low rectal cancer. Tech Coloproctol 20, 627–631 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-016-1495-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-016-1495-6