Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31392530›Full record

Observational studyTechniques in coloproctology2019

Long-term outcomes of biological mesh repair following extra levator abdominoperineal excision of the rectum: an observational study of 100 patients.

P W Thomas, J E M Blackwell, P J J Herrod, O Peacock, R Singh, J P Williams, N G Hurst, W J Speake, A Bhalla, J N Lund

Open access · hybridAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Techniques in coloproctology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Efficacy of Pelvic Peritoneum Closure After Laparoscopic Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision for Rectal Cancer.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2021
    Article
  12. [Prophylaxis of parastomal, perineal and incisional hernias in colorectal surgery].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2021
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

P W ThomasDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby, DE22 3NE, UK.
J E M BlackwellDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby, DE22 3NE, UK.
P J J HerrodDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby, DE22 3NE, UK. pherrod@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6839-3897
O PeacockDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby, DE22 3NE, UK.
R SinghDepartment of Radiology, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby, DE22 3NE, UK.
J P WilliamsDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby, DE22 3NE, UK.
N G HurstDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby, DE22 3NE, UK.
W J SpeakeDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby, DE22 3NE, UK.
A BhallaDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby, DE22 3NE, UK.
J N LundDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby, DE22 3NE, UK.
Royal Derby Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent evidence suggests that pelvic floor reconstruction following extralevator abdominoperineal excision of rectum (ELAPER) may reduce the risk of perineal herniation of intra-abdominal contents. Options for reconstruction include mesh and myocutaneous flaps, for which long-term follow-up data is lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of biological mesh (Surgisis

methodsA retrospective review of all patients having ELAPER in a single institution between 2008 and 2018 was perfomed. Clinic letters were scrutinised for wound complications and all available cross sectional imaging was reviewed to identify evidence of perineal herniation (defined as presence of intra-abdominal content below a line between the coccyx and the lower margin of the pubic symphysis on sagittal view).

resultsOne hundred patients were identified (median age 66, IQR 59-72 years, 70% male). Median length of follow-up was 4.9 years (IQR 2.3-6.7 years). One, 2- and 5-year mortality rates were 3, 8 and 12%, respectively. Thirty three perineal wounds had not healed by 1 month, but no mesh was infected and no mesh needed to be removed. Only one patient developed a symptomatic perineal hernia requiring repair. On review of imaging a further 7 asymptomatic perineal hernias were detected. At 4 years the cumulative radiologically detected perineal hernia rate was 8%.

conclusionsThis study demonstrates that pelvic floor reconstruction using biological mesh following ELAPER is both safe and effective as a long-term solution, with low major complication rates. Symptomatic perineal herniation is rare following mesh reconstruction, but may develop sub clinically and be detectable on cross-sectional imaging.

Indexed as

Surgical MeshAgedFemaleHernia, AbdominalHumansIncisional HerniaMaleMiddle AgedPelvic FloorPerineumPlastic Surgery ProceduresProctectomyRectumRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeAbdominoperineal excisionHerniaRectal cancerSurgical mesh

Identifiers

PMID31392530
PMCPMC6736926
OpenAlexW2965130330

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.