AIM: The purpose of this study was to determine treatment characteristics and clinical outcome for patients with perineal hernia after abdominoperineal excision (APE). METHOD: A systematic search of the literature revealed 40 individually documented patients, published between 1944 and 2010. Three additional patients treated at our centre were added. Patient characteristics, type of repair and outcome were entered into a database and a pooled analysis of these 43 patients was performed. RESULTS: The pooled analysis revealed a median time interval of 8 months between APE and surgical repair of perineal hernia. The surgical approaches were perineal in 22 patients, open abdominal in 11, open abdominoperineal in three, laparoscopic in five and laparoscopic-perineal in two patients. A primary recurrence was documented in 13 patients and a second recurrence in three. The recurrence rate was 5/25 for synthetic or biological mesh, 6/12 for primary closure and 2/6 for the remaining techniques. Recurrent perineal hernia was repaired using a synthetic or biological mesh (n = 6), primary closure (n = 5) or a muscle flap (gluteus or gracilis; n = 4). CONCLUSION: From these limited and biased data based on published case descriptions, it appears that the recurrence rate of primary perineal hernia repair after APE is lower with the use of a mesh or other assisted closure than with primary suture repair.
AIM: The purpose of this study was to determine treatment characteristics and clinical outcome for patients with perineal hernia after abdominoperineal excision (APE). METHOD: A systematic search of the literature revealed 40 individually documented patients, published between 1944 and 2010. Three additional patients treated at our centre were added. Patient characteristics, type of repair and outcome were entered into a database and a pooled analysis of these 43 patients was performed. RESULTS: The pooled analysis revealed a median time interval of 8 months between APE and surgical repair of perineal hernia. The surgical approaches were perineal in 22 patients, open abdominal in 11, open abdominoperineal in three, laparoscopic in five and laparoscopic-perineal in two patients. A primary recurrence was documented in 13 patients and a second recurrence in three. The recurrence rate was 5/25 for synthetic or biological mesh, 6/12 for primary closure and 2/6 for the remaining techniques. Recurrent perineal hernia was repaired using a synthetic or biological mesh (n = 6), primary closure (n = 5) or a muscle flap (gluteus or gracilis; n = 4). CONCLUSION: From these limited and biased data based on published case descriptions, it appears that the recurrence rate of primary perineal hernia repair after APE is lower with the use of a mesh or other assisted closure than with primary suture repair.
Authors: K Bertrand; J H Lefevre; B Creavin; M Luong; C Debove; T Voron; N Chafai; E Tiret; Y Parc Journal: Hernia Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 4.739
Authors: A Balla; G Batista Rodríguez; N Buonomo; C Martinez; P Hernández; J Bollo; E M Targarona Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2017-05-15 Impact factor: 3.781