A low incidence of perineal hernia when using a biological mesh after extralevator abdominoperineal excision with or without pelvic exenteration or distal sacral resection in locally advanced rectal cancer patients - Takeaways - MDSpire

A low incidence of perineal hernia when using a biological mesh after extralevator abdominoperineal excision with or without pelvic exenteration or distal sacral resection in locally advanced rectal cancer patients

  • By

  • E. A. Dijkstra

  • N. L. E. Kahmann

  • P. H. J. Hemmer

  • K. Havenga

  • B. van Etten

  • June 8, 2020

  • 0 min

Share

  • 1

    Abdominoperineal excision (APE) is a common treatment for rectal cancer, particularly for tumors near the anal verge.

  • 2

    Extralevator APE (ELAPE) results in a larger pelvic floor defect compared to conventional APE, but has similar perineal wound morbidity.

  • 3

    Biological mesh reconstruction significantly reduces the perineal hernia rate to 0-13%, compared to 21% with gluteal flap reconstructions.

  • 4

    The study evaluated 35 patients who underwent pelvic floor reconstruction using Permacol™ mesh, focusing on perineal hernia and wound healing.

  • 5

    Complications were assessed using the Clavien-Dindo classification, with a median follow-up of 24 months for the patients.

Original Source(s)

A low incidence of perineal hernia when using a biological mesh after extralevator abdominoperineal excision with or without pelvic exenteration or distal sacral resection in locally advanced rectal cancer patients

  • by E. A. Dijkstra, N. L. E. Kahmann, P. H. J. Hemmer, K. Havenga, B. van Etten

  • June 8, 2020

Related Content

Effects of the short-stitch technique for midline abdominal closure: short-term results from the randomised-controlled ESTOIH trial

AI Scribes: Efficiency for Whom?

Unresolved safety, privacy, and regulatory concerns may limit benefits of AI scribes for physicians and patients.

Evaluating negative-pressure wound therapy after abdominoperineal resection: a systematic review of efficacy and technical variability