Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Prone extralevator abdominoperineal excision of the rectum with porcine collagen perineal reconstruction (Permacol™): high primary perineal wound healing rates

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Colorectal Disease Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (elAPER) is arguably the modern surgical approach to low rectal cancer and yet results in large defects that may necessitate plastic surgical reconstruction. This study aims to evaluate the quality of prone elAPER surgery with Permacol™ repair of the perineum. The primary end point studied was the rate of primary perineal wound healing.

Methods

Data were prospectively collected for consecutive patients having prone elAPER at a single institution to assess surgical morbidity together with pathological and cancer-specific outcomes.

Results

Between 2006 and 2012, 48 patients had prone elAPER with median age of 63 (40–86). Thirty-four patients (72.3 %) received neoadjuvant treatment. Median length of stay was 9 days (6–66). With a prone approach, three patients had specimen perforation (6.4 %) and seven patients had circumferential margin involvement (14.9 %). Complete perineal wound healing was achieved in 34 patients (73.9 %) at 4 weeks. Four patients (8.3 %) were unhealed at 6 months; one patient required a perineal sinus to be laid open, and another patient required plastic surgical reconstruction. No perineal wound herniae have been identified during follow-up.

Conclusions

Acceptable oncological outcomes are achieved with the prone extralevator approach. The technique achieves high rates of primary healing, making it an attractive option in centres without access to plastic reconstructive expertise.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wibe A, Syse A, Andreson E, Tretli S, Myrvold H, Søreide O, Norwegian Rectal Cancer Group (2004) Oncological outcomes after total mesorectal excision for cure for cancer of the lower rectum: anterior vs. abdominoperineal resection. Dis Colon Rectum 47(1):48–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Brown G, Daniels IR (2005) Preoperative staging of rectal cancer: the MERCURY research project. Recent Results Cancer Res 165:58–74

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Marr R, Birbeck K, Garvican J, Macklin CP, Tiffin NJ, Parsons WJ, Dixon MF, Mapstone NP, Sebag-Montefiore D, Scott N, Johnston D, Sagar P, Finan P, Quirke P (2005) The modern abdominoperineal excision: the next challenge after total mesorectal excision. Ann Surg 242(1):74–82

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Nagtegaal ID, Marijnen CA, Kranenbarg EK, van de Velde CJ, van Krieken JH, Pathology Review Committee, Cooperative Clinical Investigators (2002) Circumferential margin involvement is still an important predictor of local recurrence in rectal carcinoma: not one millimetre but two millimetres is the limit. Am J Surg Path 26(3):350–357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tilney HS, Rasheed S, Northover JM, Tekkis PP (2009) The influence of circumferential resection margins on long-term outcomes following rectal cancer surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 52(10):1723–1729

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Miles WE (1908) A method of performing abdominoperineal excision for carcinoma of the rectum and of the terminal portion of the pelvic colon. Lancet 2:1812–1813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Holm T, Ljung A, Häggmark T, Jurell G, Lagergren J (2007) Extended abdominoperineal resection with gluteus maximus flap reconstruction of the pelvic floor for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 94(2):232–238

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nisar JP, Scott HJ (2009) Myocutaneous flap reconstruction of the pelvis after abdominoperineal excision. Colorectal Dis 11(8):806–816

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wille-Jørgensen P, Pilsgaard B, Möller P (2009) Reconstruction of the pelvic floor with a biological mesh after abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 24(3):323–325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Abhinav K, Shaaban M, Raymond T, Oke T, Gullan R, Montgomery AC (2009) Primary reconstruction of the pelvic floor defects following sacrectomy using Permacol graft. Eur J Surg Oncol 35(4):439–443

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. National Bowel Cancer Audit Project. Annual report 2009. http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB02587/nati-clin-audi-supp-prog-bowe-canc-2019-rep2.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2014

  12. National Bowel Cancer Audit Project. Annual report 2013. http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB11105/nati-clin-audi-supp-prog-bowe-canc-2013-rep1.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2014

  13. Tilney HS, Heriot AG, Purkayastha S, Antoniou A, Aylin P, Darzi AW, Tekkis PP (2008) A national perspective on the decline of abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer. Ann Surg 247(1):77–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Morris E, Quirke P, Thomas JD, Fairley L, Cottier B, Forman D (2008) Unacceptable variation in abdominoperineal excision rates for rectal cancer: time to intervene? Gut 57(12):1690–1697

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Eriksen MT, Wibe A, Syse A, Haffner J, Wiig JN, on behalf of the Norwegian Rectal Cancer Group and the Norwegian Gastrointestinal Cancer Group (2004) Inadvertent perforation during cancer resection in Norway. Br J Surg 91:210–216

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rothenberger DA, Wong WD (1992) Abdominoperineal resection for adenocarcinoma of the low rectum. World J Surg 16(3):478–485

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nagtegaal ID, van de Velde CJ, Marijnen CA, van Krieken JH, Quirke P, Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group, Pathology Review Committee (2005) Low rectal cancer: a call for a change of approach in abdominoperineal resection. J Clin Oncol 23(36):9257–9264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. West NP, Anderin C, Smith KJ, Holm T, Quirke P, European Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision Study Group (2010) Multicentre experience with extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer. Br J Surg 97(4):588–599

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Foster JD, Pathak S, Smart NJ, Branagan G, Longman RJ, Thomas MG, Francis N (2012) Reconstruction of the perineum following extralevator abdominoperineal excision for carcinoma of the lower rectum: a systematic review. Colorectal Dis 14(9):1052–1059

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jensen KK, Rashid L, Pilsgaard B, Møller P, Wille-Jørgensen P (2014) Pelvic floor reconstruction with a biological mesh after extralevator abdominoperineal excision leads to few perineal hernias and acceptable wound complication rates with minor movement limitations: single centre experience including clinical examination and interview. Colorectal Dis 16(3):192–197

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Porter GA, O’Keefe GE, Yakimets WW (1996) Inadvertant perforation of the rectum during abdominoperineal resection. Am J Surg 172(4):324–327

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Davies M, Harris D, Hirst G, Beynon R, Morgan AR, Carr ND, Beynon J (2009) Local recurrence after abdomino-perineal resection. Colorectal Dis 11(1):39–43

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Harris DA, Davies M, Lucas MG, Drew P, Carr ND, Beynon J, on behalf of the Swansea Pelvic Oncology Group (2011) Multivisceral resection for the primary locally advanced rectal carcinoma. Br J Surg 98(4):582–588

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Princess of Wales Hospital, Bridgend, Wales, UK

    R. L. Harries, A. Luhmann, J. A. Shami & B. N. Appleton

  2. Morriston Hospital, Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board, Swansea, Wales, UK

    D. A. Harris

  3. Department of Surgery, Princess of Wales Hospital, Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board, Coity Rd, Bridgend, CF36 1RQ, UK

    J. A. Shami & B. N. Appleton

Authors
  1. R. L. Harries
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Luhmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. A. Harris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. A. Shami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. B. N. Appleton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. N. Appleton.

Additional information

Authors declare no current or historic financial dealings with Covidien.

This study was accepted for oral presentation at 2014 ASGBI Scientific Meeting in Harrogate.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Harries, R.L., Luhmann, A., Harris, D.A. et al. Prone extralevator abdominoperineal excision of the rectum with porcine collagen perineal reconstruction (Permacol™): high primary perineal wound healing rates. Int J Colorectal Dis 29, 1125–1130 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-014-1963-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-014-1963-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation