N P McKenna1,2, E B Habermann1,2, D W Larson3, S R Kelley3, K L Mathis4. 1. Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 2. The Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery Surgical Outcomes Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 3. Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, 200 1st St SW, Rochester, MN, 55902, USA. 4. Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, 200 1st St SW, Rochester, MN, 55902, USA. mathis.kellie@mayo.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Though perineal hernias remain rare, the incidence is reportedly rising. Secondary to the historical rarity, optimal method of repair and outcomes after repair remain poorly understood. Therefore, we reviewed the past 25 years of our institutional experience with perineal hernia repair. METHODS: A retrospective review of an institution-maintained database was conducted from January 1, 1994 to January 31, 2018 for patients undergoing perineal hernia repair. Data were collected on patient characteristics, operative technique, and post-operative outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (n = 12 male) underwent perineal hernia repair in the study period with two-thirds of the operations occurring in the most recent 7 years (since January 1, 2011). The median time to repair was 13 months (range 2-127) after index operation. The approach was transabdominal in nine, perineal in nine, and combined in three. Mesh, a tissue flap, or a combination of these was used in 19 of the cases and 6 additional abdominal wall hernias were repaired concurrently. Post-operative complications consisted of superficial surgical-site infection (n = 2), infected seroma (n = 1), and a missed enterotomy (n = 1). Follow-up ranged from 0 to 112 months (median 2 months) and only one recurrence was noted. CONCLUSION: Presentation for repair of perineal hernia has increased at our instituion over the past 2 decades. Outcomes did not differ between the three repair approaches and the choice of mesh or tissue-based repair. Surgeons should base these decisions on hernia complexity and local tissue conditions.
PURPOSE: Though perineal hernias remain rare, the incidence is reportedly rising. Secondary to the historical rarity, optimal method of repair and outcomes after repair remain poorly understood. Therefore, we reviewed the past 25 years of our institutional experience with perineal hernia repair. METHODS: A retrospective review of an institution-maintained database was conducted from January 1, 1994 to January 31, 2018 for patients undergoing perineal hernia repair. Data were collected on patient characteristics, operative technique, and post-operative outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (n = 12 male) underwent perineal hernia repair in the study period with two-thirds of the operations occurring in the most recent 7 years (since January 1, 2011). The median time to repair was 13 months (range 2-127) after index operation. The approach was transabdominal in nine, perineal in nine, and combined in three. Mesh, a tissue flap, or a combination of these was used in 19 of the cases and 6 additional abdominal wall hernias were repaired concurrently. Post-operative complications consisted of superficial surgical-site infection (n = 2), infected seroma (n = 1), and a missed enterotomy (n = 1). Follow-up ranged from 0 to 112 months (median 2 months) and only one recurrence was noted. CONCLUSION: Presentation for repair of perineal hernia has increased at our instituion over the past 2 decades. Outcomes did not differ between the three repair approaches and the choice of mesh or tissue-based repair. Surgeons should base these decisions on hernia complexity and local tissue conditions.
Authors: Rebecca L Siegel; Kimberly D Miller; Stacey A Fedewa; Dennis J Ahnen; Reinier G S Meester; Afsaneh Barzi; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Clifford C Sheckter; Afaaf Shakir; Hong Vo; Jennifer Tsai; Rahim Nazerali; Gordon K Lee Journal: J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg Date: 2016-07-02 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Steven Schneeberger; Sharon Phillips; Li-Ching Huang; Richard A Pierce; Shervin A Etemad; Benjamin K Poulose Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Matthew V Chauviere; Ryan J Schutter; Megan B Steigelman; Beth Z Clark; John Kevin Grayson; David E Sahar Journal: Ann Plast Surg Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 1.539