ReviewCancers2021
Perineal Wound Closure Following Abdominoperineal Resection and Pelvic Exenteration for Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical outcomes in pelvic reconstruction using robot-assisted rectus abdominis muscle flaps: a systematic review.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluating negative-pressure wound therapy after abdominoperineal resection: a systematic review of efficacy and technical variability.Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Pooled it
- Perineal wound complications after vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap and mesh closure following abdominoperineal surgery and pelvic exenteration of anal and rectal cancers: A meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2023Pooled it
- Review
- Margin-driven outcomes prevail over resection planes: multivisceral surgery matches total mesorectal excision in locally advanced rectal cancer.Annals of coloproctology · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Derived Intramuscular Adipose Tissue Assessment Predicts Perineal Wound Complications Following Abdominoperineal Resection.World journal of surgery · 2025Article
- The Review of Modified Intersphincteric Resection in the Treatment of Ultra-Low Rectal Cancer.Current treatment options in oncology · 2025Review
- Abdominal Mesh Use in Pedicled Rectus Abdominis Flaps for Pelvic Reconstruction.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Bilateral Superior Gluteal Artery Perforator (SGAP) Flap: Modified Concept in Perineal Reconstruction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Personalized Decisional Algorithms for Soft Tissue Defect Reconstruction after Abdominoperineal Resection for Low-Lying Rectal Cancers.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- The empty pelvis syndrome: a core data set from the PelvEx collaborative.The British journal of surgery · 2024Article
- [Clinical effect of modified vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap in repairing skin and soft tissue defects after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2024Observational
- VRAM Flap for Pelvic Floor Reconstruction after Pelvic Exenteration and Abdominoperineal Excision.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAbdominoperineal resection (APR) and pelvic exenteration (PE) for the treatment of cancer require extensive pelvic resection with a high rate of postoperative complications. The objective of this work was to systematically review and meta-analyze the effects of vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap (VRAMf) and mesh closure on perineal morbidity following APR and PE (mainly for anal and rectal cancers).
methodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE for eligible studies as of the year 2000. After data extraction, a meta-analysis was performed to compare perineal wound morbidity. The studies were distributed as follows: Group A comparing primary closure (PC) and VRAMf, Group B comparing PC and mesh closure, and Group C comparing PC and VRAMf in PE.
resultsOur systematic review yielded 18 eligible studies involving 2180 patients (1206 primary closures, 647 flap closures, 327 mesh closures). The meta-analysis of Groups A and B showed PC to be associated with an increase in the rate of total (Group A: OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43-0.71;
conclusionOur results confirm the contribution of the VRAMf in reducing major complications in APR. Similarly, biological prostheses offer an interesting alternative in pelvic reconstruction. For PE, an adapted reconstruction must be proposed with specialized expertise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.