Assessment of morbidity and predictors of wound complications following perineal wound closure after radical anorectal oncologic resection: retrospective cohort study.

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
BJS Open Pub Date : 2025-05-07 DOI:10.1093/bjsopen/zraf065
Aron Bercz, Janet Alvarez, Roni Rosen, Matthew Drescher, Hiroyuki Sonoda, Georgios Karagkounis, Iris Wei, Maria Widmar, Garrett M Nash, Martin R Weiser, Philip B Paty, Robert J Allen, Jonas A Nelson, Michelle Coriddi, Joseph H Dayan, Colleen McCarthy, Farooq Shahzad, Evan Matros, Joseph J Disa, Peter G Cordeiro, Babak J Mehrara, Julio Garcia-Aguilar, J Joshua Smith, Emmanouil P Pappou
{"title":"Assessment of morbidity and predictors of wound complications following perineal wound closure after radical anorectal oncologic resection: retrospective cohort study.","authors":"Aron Bercz, Janet Alvarez, Roni Rosen, Matthew Drescher, Hiroyuki Sonoda, Georgios Karagkounis, Iris Wei, Maria Widmar, Garrett M Nash, Martin R Weiser, Philip B Paty, Robert J Allen, Jonas A Nelson, Michelle Coriddi, Joseph H Dayan, Colleen McCarthy, Farooq Shahzad, Evan Matros, Joseph J Disa, Peter G Cordeiro, Babak J Mehrara, Julio Garcia-Aguilar, J Joshua Smith, Emmanouil P Pappou","doi":"10.1093/bjsopen/zraf065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Perineal wound management after radical pelvic surgery is complex and diverse. This retrospective study evaluated surgical morbidity and predictors of wound complications associated with different perineal closure techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Medical records of patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection or pelvic exenteration followed by tissue flap reconstruction (TFR) or primary closure (PC) between 2012 and 2020 were reviewed. Postoperative morbidity, including wound dehiscence, infection, flap loss, and Clavien-Dindo complications, were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In all, 414 patients underwent surgery for rectal (364) or anal (50) malignancies, with 150 receiving TFR and 264 receiving PC; an omental flap was used in 81 patients who underwent PC. TFR was more commonly used in complex situations (for example exenteration, sacrectomy, vaginectomy, intraoperative radiation). Compared with PC, TFR was associated with higher 90-day rates of wound dehiscence (27 versus 11%; P  < 0.001), wound infection (25 versus 14%; P  < 0.001) and grade ≥III Clavien-Dindo complications (32 versus 17%; P  = 0.001). Flap loss occurred in 2 patients (1%) who underwent TFR. No differences were observed among TFR subtypes, or between patients who underwent PC with and without an omental flap. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that anal cancer (odds ratio (OR) 5.24, 95% confidence interval (c.i.) 1.07 to 25.58; P = 0.041) and extralevator resection (OR 3.09, 95% c.i. 1.07 to 8.92; P = 0.037) were independent predictors of wound dehiscence, whereas vaginectomy was a predictor of wound dehiscence in the TFR subgroup (OR 17.9, 95% c.i. 1.05 to 304.73; P = 0.046).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>TFR was associated with higher morbidity due to greater case complexity, but there were no difference in outcomes across flap subtypes. Anal cancer, extralevator resection, and vaginectomy were independent predictors of dehiscence. Omental flaps did not increase the risk of wound complications.</p>","PeriodicalId":9028,"journal":{"name":"BJS Open","volume":"9 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12159743/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJS Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zraf065","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Perineal wound management after radical pelvic surgery is complex and diverse. This retrospective study evaluated surgical morbidity and predictors of wound complications associated with different perineal closure techniques.

Methods: Medical records of patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection or pelvic exenteration followed by tissue flap reconstruction (TFR) or primary closure (PC) between 2012 and 2020 were reviewed. Postoperative morbidity, including wound dehiscence, infection, flap loss, and Clavien-Dindo complications, were assessed.

Results: In all, 414 patients underwent surgery for rectal (364) or anal (50) malignancies, with 150 receiving TFR and 264 receiving PC; an omental flap was used in 81 patients who underwent PC. TFR was more commonly used in complex situations (for example exenteration, sacrectomy, vaginectomy, intraoperative radiation). Compared with PC, TFR was associated with higher 90-day rates of wound dehiscence (27 versus 11%; P  < 0.001), wound infection (25 versus 14%; P  < 0.001) and grade ≥III Clavien-Dindo complications (32 versus 17%; P  = 0.001). Flap loss occurred in 2 patients (1%) who underwent TFR. No differences were observed among TFR subtypes, or between patients who underwent PC with and without an omental flap. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that anal cancer (odds ratio (OR) 5.24, 95% confidence interval (c.i.) 1.07 to 25.58; P = 0.041) and extralevator resection (OR 3.09, 95% c.i. 1.07 to 8.92; P = 0.037) were independent predictors of wound dehiscence, whereas vaginectomy was a predictor of wound dehiscence in the TFR subgroup (OR 17.9, 95% c.i. 1.05 to 304.73; P = 0.046).

Conclusion: TFR was associated with higher morbidity due to greater case complexity, but there were no difference in outcomes across flap subtypes. Anal cancer, extralevator resection, and vaginectomy were independent predictors of dehiscence. Omental flaps did not increase the risk of wound complications.

肛门直肠肿瘤根治性切除术后会阴伤口闭合后伤口并发症的发病率和预测因素的评估:回顾性队列研究。
背景:盆腔根治性手术后会阴伤口处理复杂多样。本回顾性研究评估了不同会阴闭合技术的手术发病率和伤口并发症的预测因素。方法:回顾2012年至2020年接受腹会阴切除或盆腔切除后组织瓣重建(TFR)或一期闭合(PC)患者的医疗记录。评估术后并发症,包括伤口裂开、感染、皮瓣丢失和Clavien-Dindo并发症。结果:共有414例患者接受直肠(364例)或肛门(50例)恶性肿瘤手术,其中150例接受TFR, 264例接受PC;在81例PC患者中应用网膜瓣。TFR更常用于复杂的情况(如拔肠、骶骨切除术、阴道切除术、术中放疗)。与PC相比,TFR与更高的90天伤口开裂率相关(27%对11%;P < 0.001),伤口感染(25%对14%;P < 0.001)和≥III级Clavien-Dindo并发症(32比17%;P = 0.001)。2例(1%)TFR患者发生皮瓣丢失。在TFR亚型之间,或在有和没有网膜皮瓣的PC患者之间,没有观察到差异。多因素分析显示肛门癌(优势比(OR) 5.24, 95%可信区间(ci) 1.07 ~ 25.58;P = 0.041)和外提肌切除术(OR 3.09, 95% ci 1.07 ~ 8.92;P = 0.037)是伤口开裂的独立预测因素,而阴道切除术是TFR亚组伤口开裂的预测因素(OR 17.9, 95% ci . 1.05 ~ 304.73;P = 0.046)。结论:TFR与较高的发病率相关,因其病例复杂性较大,但不同皮瓣亚型的预后无差异。肛门癌、提肛外切除术和阴道切除术是裂孔的独立预测因素。网膜瓣没有增加伤口并发症的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BJS Open
BJS Open SURGERY-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
3.20%
发文量
144
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信