1. Outcomes following abdominoperineal resection 6 years retrospective study at a rural district general hospital
- Author
-
Deeksha Arora, Milind Rao, Michael Tang, and Thomas Seddon
- Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty ,business.industry ,Abdominoperineal resection ,General surgery ,Medicine ,Retrospective cohort study ,Rural district ,General hospital ,business - Abstract
Background: A range of surgical techniques are used for perineal wound closure following Abdominoperineal Excision of the Rectum (APER). The aim of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of using a biological mesh for perineal wound closure and to compare the outcomes following conventional suture and mesh closure of the perineal wound.Methods: A single-centre retrospective study of a cohort of patients undergoing surgery for low rectal cancer between January 2013 and December 2018. Patient records were analysed for outcomes including perineal complication rates, length of hospital stay and impact of patient factors on complication rates in mesh vs no mesh group.Results: Of the total 43 patients included in the study, 13 (30%) had a conventional perineal closure whereas 30 patients (70%) had a biological mesh reconstruction. Early perineal wound complications were seen in 21/43 (49%) patients. Of those, 6 (29%) patients were in the no mesh group compared to 15 (71%) patients in the mesh group (p = 0.81). 84% of the patients who received neo adjuvant radiotherapy (NART) developed perineal wound infection. There was no statistically significant difference in the mesh and no mesh groups. None of the patient factors, other than preoperative anaemia, had a statistically significant association with the rate of complications in either of the groups.Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference in the complication rate between primary and biological mesh closure. Biological mesh is safe for perineal reconstruction following APER.
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF