41
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    1
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Randomized controlled multicentre study comparing biological mesh closure of the pelvic floor with primary perineal wound closure after extralevator abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer (BIOPEX-study)

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Primary perineal wound closure after conventional abdominoperineal resection (cAPR) for rectal cancer has been the standard of care for many years. Since the introduction of neo-adjuvant radiotherapy and the extralevator APR (eAPR), oncological outcome has been improved, but at the cost of increased rates of perineal wound healing problems and perineal hernia. This has progressively increased the use of biological meshes, although not supported by sufficient evidence. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of pelvic floor reconstruction using a biological mesh after standardized eAPR with neo-adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy compared to primary perineal wound closure.

          Methods/Design

          In this multicentre randomized controlled trial, patients with a clinical diagnosis of primary rectal cancer who are scheduled for eAPR after neo-adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy will be considered eligible. Exclusion criteria are prior radiotherapy, sacral resection above S4/S5, allergy to pig products or polysorbate, collagen disorders, and severe systemic diseases affecting wound healing, except for diabetes. After informed consent, 104 patients will be randomized between standard care using primary wound closure of the perineum and the experimental arm consisting of suturing a biological mesh derived from porcine dermis in the pelvic floor defect, followed by perineal closure similar to the control arm. Patients will be followed for one year after the intervention and outcome assessors and patients will be blinded for the study treatment. The primary endpoint is the percentage of uncomplicated perineal wound healing, defined as a Southampton wound score of less than II on day 30. Secondary endpoints are hospital stay, incidence of perineal hernia, quality of life, and costs.

          Discussion

          The BIOPEX-study is the first randomized controlled multicentre study to determine the additive value of using a biological mesh for perineal wound closure after eAPR with neo-adjuvant radiotherapy compared to primary perineal wound closure with regard to perineal wound healing and the occurrence of perineal hernia.

          Trail registration number

          NCT01927497 (Clinicaltrial.gov).

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Multicentre experience with extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer.

          Abdominoperineal excision (APE) for low rectal cancer is associated with higher rates of circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement and intraoperative perforation (IOPs) than anterior resection for higher tumours. This multicentre observational study was designed to confirm that extralevator APE can improve outcomes and investigated the morbidity associated with such extensive surgery. Some 176 extralevator APE procedures from 11 European colorectal surgeons were compared with 124 standard excisions from one UK centre. Clinical and pathological data were collected along with specimen photographs. Tissue morphometry was performed on the distal ten slices of the excision. Extralevator APE removed more tissue from outside the smooth muscle layer per slice (median area 2120 versus 1259 mm(2); P < 0.001) leading to a reduction in CRM involvement (from 49.6 to 20.3 per cent; P < 0.001) and IOP (from 28.2 to 8.2 per cent; P < 0.001) compared with standard surgery. However, extralevator surgery was associated with an increase in perineal wound complications (from 20 to 38.0 per cent; P = 0.019). Extralevator APE is associated with less CRM involvement and IOP than standard surgery. Copyright (c) 2010 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Primary perineal wound closure after preoperative radiotherapy and abdominoperineal resection has a high incidence of wound failure.

            Neoadjuvant radiation therapy has been used increasingly to downstage rectal cancer and decrease local recurrence. Despite its efficacy, preoperative radiation therapy may inhibit healing and contribute to wound complications. This study was designed to evaluate perineal wound complications after abdominoperineal resection. The clinical records of a consecutive series of patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection for rectal carcinoma between 1988 and 2002 were reviewed. Demographic data, disease stage, and use of preoperative radiation therapy were recorded. Major wound complications included delayed wound healing (>1 month), wound infection requiring drainage/debridement, or reoperation. A total of 160 patients underwent abdominoperineal resection with primary closure of the perineal wound (mean age, 63 +/- 12 years); 117 (73 percent) patients received preoperative radiation therapy; 114 received radiation therapy for rectal cancer (radiation therapy + chemotherapy = 107, radiation therapy alone = 7); 3 received radiation therapy for other pelvic malignancies. Median radiation dose was 5,040 (range, 900-5,400) cGY. Overall wound complication rate was 41 percent. Major wound complication rate was 35 percent. Delayed healing was the most common complication (24 percent), followed by infection (10 percent). Radiation therapy increased the risk of any wound complication (47 vs. 23 percent; P = 0.005), risk of a major wound complication (41 vs. 19 percent; P = 0.021), and risk of infection (14 vs. 0 percent; P = 0.015). Risk of wound complications did not correlate with age, gender, disease stage, smoking, or diabetes. Wound complications are frequent after abdominoperineal resection and primary closure of the perineum. Preoperative radiation therapy doubles the rate of total and major perineal wound complications. Alternatives to primary perineal closure should be considered, particularly after radiation therapy.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Outcomes of immediate vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap reconstruction for irradiated abdominoperineal resection defects.

              Perineal wound complications after chemoradiotherapy and abdominoperineal resection (APR) for anorectal cancer occur in up to 60% of patients, including perineal abscess and wound dehiscence. Vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) flaps have been used in an attempt to reduce these complications by obliterating the noncollapsible dead space with vascularized tissue and closing the perineal skin defect with nonirradiated flap skin. Many surgeons are reluctant to use VRAM flaps unless primary closure is not possible. All patients who underwent chemoradiotherapy and APR during a 12-year period at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center were retrospectively reviewed. Patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics and surgical complications and outcomes were compared between patients who underwent VRAM flap reconstruction of wounds that could have been closed primarily (flap group, n = 35) and those who had primary closure of the perineal wound (control group, n = 76). Overall, there were no significant differences in the incidence of perineal wound complications between the groups; the flap group had a significantly lower incidence of perineal abscess (9% versus 37%, p = 0.002), major perineal wound dehiscence (9% versus 30%, p = 0.014), and drainage procedures required for perineal/pelvic fluid collections (3% versus 25%, p = 0.003) than the control group had. Despite flap harvest and the need for donor site closure in the flap group, there was no significant difference in abdominal wall complications between groups during the study's mean patient followup of 3.8 years. VRAM flap reconstruction of irradiated APR defects reduces major perineal wound complications without increasing early abdominal wall complications. Strong consideration should be given to immediate VRAM flap reconstruction after chemoradiation and APR.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                BMC Surg
                BMC Surg
                BMC Surgery
                BioMed Central
                1471-2482
                2014
                27 August 2014
                : 14
                : 58
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Post box 22660, Amsterdam 1105AZ, The Netherlands
                [2 ]Department of Surgery, Deventer Hospital, Post Box 5001, Deventer 7400CC, The Netherlands
                [3 ]Department of Surgery, Erasmus Medical Centre / Daniel den Hoed, Post box 2040 3000, Rotterdam, CA, The Netherlands
                [4 ]Department of Surgery, Gelre Hospital, Albert Schweitzerlaan 31, Apeldoorn, DZ 7334, The Netherlands
                [5 ]Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, Groningen, RB 9700, The Netherlands
                [6 ]Department of Surgery, Tergooi Hospital, Post box 10016, Hilversum, DA 1201, The Netherlands
                [7 ]Department of Surgery, IJsselland hospital, Post box 690, Capelle aan de Ijssel, AR 2900, The Netherlands
                [8 ]Department of Surgery, Medical Centre Leeuwarden, Henri Dunantweg 2, LeeuwardenAD 8934, The Netherlands
                [9 ]Department of Surgery, Spaarne Hospital, Spaarnepoort 1, Spaarne, TM 2134, The Netherlands
                [10 ]Department of Surgery, St. Laurentius Hospital, Monseigneur Driessenstraat 6, Roermond, CV 6043, The Netherlands
                [11 ]Department of Surgery, Catherina hospital, Eindhoven, EJ and Maastricht University Medical Centre, Michelangelolaan 2, P. Debyelaan 25 6229, Maastricht, HX 5623, The Netherlands
                [12 ]Department of Surgery, Leicester Hospital, Gwendolen Rd, Leicester, UK
                [13 ]Department of Surgery, Flevohospital, Hospitaalweg 1, Almere, RA 1315, The Netherlands
                [14 ]Department of Surgery, Kennemer Gasthuis, Boerhaavelaan 22, Haarlem, RC 2035, The Netherlands
                [15 ]Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, Geert Grooteplein-Zuid 22, Nijmegen, GA 6525, The Netherlands
                [16 ]Clinical Research Unit, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Post box 22660, Amsterdam 1105AZ, The Netherlands
                Article
                1471-2482-14-58
                10.1186/1471-2482-14-58
                4158342
                25163547
                7f0820e2-e2a6-4351-9f55-397532604d0b
                Copyright © 2014 Musters et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 9 February 2014
                : 21 August 2014
                Categories
                Study Protocol

                Surgery
                abdominoperineal resection,rectal cancer,radiotherapy,primary perineal wound closure,biological mesh,perineal wound infection,perineal wound healing

                Comments

                Comment on this article