Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42308016›Full record

Trial reportBJS open2026

Cost-effectiveness of the gluteal turnover flap for perineal wound closure after abdominoperineal resection: randomized clinical trial.

R van den Berg, G D Musters, C Verhoef, H M Blommestein, P J Tanis, BIOPEX-2 Study Group

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in BJS open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04004650 (Gluteal Turnover Flap for Closure of the Perineal Wound After Abdominoperineal Resection for Rectal Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT04004650 naunknown statusnot on this map

Gluteal Turnover Flap for Closure of the Perineal Wound After Abdominoperineal Resection for Rectal Cancer

TypeinterventionalSponsorAcademisch Medisch Centrum - Universiteit van Amsterdam (AMC-UvA)Ran2019 to 2022Enrolled160ConditionsWound Heal, Abdominoperineal Resection, Rectal CancerArmsGluteal turnover flap
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

6 authors.

R van den BergDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0001-8850-6166
G D MustersDepartment of Surgery, Zaans Medical Center, Zaandam, the Netherlands.
C VerhoefDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9980-8613
H M BlommesteinErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
P J TanisDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3146-3310
BIOPEX-2 Study Group

Funding

Dutch Cancer Society 157715771
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn rectal cancer patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection (APR), a gluteal turnover flap has been proposed to reduce perineal morbidity; however, its cost-effectiveness remains unclear. This multicentre randomized clinical trial evaluated the cost-effectiveness of perineal closure with a gluteal turnover flap compared with primary closure after APR for rectal cancer.

methodsThis secondary analysis of the BIOPEX-2 trial enrolled patients undergoing APR for rectal cancer at 19 hospitals (18 in the Netherlands, 1 in the UK) who were randomized in 1:1 to primary closure or gluteal turnover flap closure. Outcome assessors for wound healing and interviewers collecting cost and quality-of-life data were blinded to allocation. The outcome of interest was 12-month cost-effectiveness, including procedural costs, post-hospitalization care, wound care, rehospitalization, workforce participation, and health-related quality of life (QoL), as measured by EQ-5D™ and EQ-VAS scores collected via blinded telephone interview at ≥ 24 months. Missing data were handled by multiple imputation. Mean costs were calculated, and bootstrapping was used to estimate cost differences. QoL was compared between groups according to the presence of perineal complications.

resultsThe BIOPEX-2 trial randomized 175 patients; of these, 165 patients were analysed for the cost-effectiveness study (86 in the primary closure group, 79 in the gluteal turnover flap closure group). The mean total cost was €53 397 (95% confidence interval (c.i.) €46 645 to €60 149) for primary closure and €45 079 (95% c.i. €42 201 to €47 957) for gluteal turnover flap closure, yielding a mean cost reduction of €8318 (95% c.i. €928 to €15 709) favouring the gluteal turnover flap. The primary closure group had higher outpatient (total €71 316 versus €53 387), specialized wound (mean €1200 versus €720), and home care (mean €3842 versus €2504) costs. Patients with perineal complications reported significantly lower EQ-VAS and EQ-5D™ scores. Although these complications occurred more frequently in the primary closure group, no significant differences in QoL were observed between the randomization groups.

conclusionGluteal turnover flap closure is a cost-saving strategy for perineal wound closure following APR in patients with rectal cancer. These findings support broader implementation and offer potential benefits for both patients and healthcare providers. Registration number: NCT04004650 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Indexed as

PerineumProctectomyRectal NeoplasmsSurgical FlapsWound Closure TechniquesAgedButtocksCost-Benefit AnalysisCost-Effectiveness AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPostoperative ComplicationsQuality of Lifehealth economicspostoperative complicationsquality of liferectal neoplasmssurgical reconstruction

Identifiers

PMID42308016
PMCPMC13274466

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.