Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31910492›Full record

ArticleColorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland2020

Further insights into the treatment of perineal hernia based on a the experience of a single tertiary centre.

R D Blok, T P A Brouwer, S Sharabiany, G D Musters, R Hompes, W A Bemelman, P J Tanis

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Congenital perineal hernia: a systematic review of case reports.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Mesh, flap or combined repair of perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection - A systematic review and meta-analysis.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Perineal hernia repair: Multicentre comparative analysis of mesh-only versus mesh combined with tissue flap.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Management of Perineal Wounds Following Pelvic Surgery.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

R D BlokDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5291-546X
T P A BrouwerDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
S SharabianyDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
G D MustersDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
R HompesDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
W A BemelmanDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
P J TanisDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThere is little evidence concerning the optimal surgical technique for the repair of perineal hernia. This study aimed to report on the evolution of a technique for repair of perineal hernia by analysing the experience in a tertiary referral centre.

methodThis was a retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent perineal hernia repair after abdominoperineal excision in a tertiary referral centre. The main study end-points were rate of recurrent perineal hernia, perineal wound complications and related re-intervention.

resultsThirty-four patients were included: in 18 patients a biological mesh was used followed by 16 patients who underwent synthetic mesh repair. Postoperative perineal wound infection occurred in two patients (11%) after biological mesh repair compared with four (25%) after synthetic mesh repair (P = 0.387). None of the meshes were explanted. Recurrent perineal hernia following biological mesh was found in 7 of 18 patients (39%) after a median of 33 months. The recurrence rate with a synthetic mesh was 5 of 16 patients (31%) after a median of 17 months (P = 0.642). Re-repair was performed in four (22%) and two patients (13%), respectively (P = 0.660). Eight patients required a transposition flap reconstruction to close the perineum over the mesh, and no recurrent hernias were observed in this subgroup (P = 0.030). No mesh-related small bowel complications occurred.

conclusionRecurrence rates after perineal hernia repair following abdominoperineal excision were high, and did not seem to be related to the type of mesh. If a transposition flap was added to the mesh repair no recurrences were observed, but this finding needs confirmation in larger studies.

Indexed as

HerniaHerniorrhaphyPerineumRectal NeoplasmsSurgical MeshHumansMaleNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective Studiesabdominoperineal excisionbiological meshmesh repairPerineal herniasynthetic mesh

Identifiers

PMID31910492
PMCPMC7318248

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.