Outcomes following abdominoperineal resection 6 years retrospective study at a rural district general hospital


  • Deeksha Arora Department of Surgery, Pilgrim Hospital, Boston, UK
  • Michael Tang Department of Surgery, Pilgrim Hospital, Boston, UK
  • Thomas Seddon Department of Surgery, Pilgrim Hospital, Boston, UK
  • Milind Rao Department of Surgery, Pilgrim Hospital, Boston, UK




Abdominoperineal excision of the rectum, Biological mesh, Low rectal cancer, Perineal reconstruction


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.


Nakamura T, Sato T, Hayakawa K, Takayama Y, Naito M, Yamanashi T, et al. Risk factors for perineal wound infection after abdominoperineal resection of advanced lower rectal cancer. Annals Med Surg. 2017;15:14-8.

Musters GD, Bemelman WA, Bosker RJI, Burger JWA, Duijvendijk PV, Etten BV, et al. Biological mesh closure of the pelvic floor after extralevator abdomino perineal resection for rectal cancer. a multicenter randomized controlled trial (the biopex-study). Ann Surg. 2017;265:1074-81.

El-Gazzaz G, Kiran RP, Lavery I. Wound complications in rectal cancer patients undergoing primary closure of the perineal wound after abdominoperineal resection. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52(12):1962-6.

Sumrien H, Newman P, Burt C, McCarthy K, Dixon A, Pullyblank A, et al. The use of a negative pressure wound management system in perineal wound closure after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for low rectal cancer. Tech Coloproctol. 2016;20:627-31.

Collin A, Gustafsson UM, Smedh K, Pahlman L, Graf W, Folkesson J. Effect of local gentamicin–collagen on perineal wound complications and cancer recurrence after abdominoperineal resection: a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Disease. 2013;15(3):341-6.

Muster G, Buskens C, Bemelman W, Tanis P. Perineal wound healing after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57(9):1129-39.

Wiatrek RL, Thomas JS, Papaconstantinou HT. Perineal wound complications after abdominoperineal resection. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2008;21(1):76-86.

Rencuzogullari A, Gorgun E, Binboga S, Ozuner G, Kessler H, Abbas MA. Predictors of wound dehiscence and its impact on mortality after abdominoperineal resection: data from the National surgical quality improvement program. Tech Coloproctol. 2016;20:475-82.

Battersby NJ, Dattani M, Rao S, Cunningham D, Tait D, Adams R, et al. A rectal cancer feasibility study with an embedded phase III trial design assessing magnetic resonance tumour regression grade (mrTRG) as a novel biomarker to stratify management by good and poor response to chemoradiotherapy (TRIGGER): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2017;18:394.

Simpson G, Hopley P, Wilson J, Haworth A, Montazeri A, Smith D, et al. Long‐term outcomes of real world ‘watch and wait’ data for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Colorectal Disease. 2020;4:151-7.




How to Cite

Arora, D., Tang, M., Seddon, T., & Rao, M. (2021). Outcomes following abdominoperineal resection 6 years retrospective study at a rural district general hospital. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 9(3), 665–669. https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20210862



Original Research Articles