Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Perineal wound management after abdominoperineal rectal excision for carcinoma with unsatisfactory hemostasis or gross septic contamination: Primary closure vs. packing

A multicenter, controlled trial

  • Original Contributions
  • Published:
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study was designed to compare the results of two methods on the rate of postoperative perineum healing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, multicenter trial of 234 consecutive patients undergoing abdominoperineal rectal excision for carcinoma, 48 had unsatisfactory hemostasis or intraoperative gross septic contamination. Three patients were withdrawn because of protocol violation. Of the 45 remaining patients, 21 were randomized to undergo primary closure of the perineum with drainage while 24 underwent packing. Preoperative factors (sex, age, degree of obesity, weight loss, anemia, or presence of ascites), intraoperative findings (Dukes stage, degree of hemostasis, gross septic contamination), and postoperative oncologic courses (recurrence, mortality rate) were similar in both groups. All patients were followed for at least 12 months or until their demise. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the number of early (one vs. zero) or late (five vs. four) deaths between primary closure and packing groups, respectively. Median duration of hospital stay was 25 and 27 days, respectively. Primary closure was associated with a significantly higher rate of healed perineums at one month (30 percent vs. 0 percent) (P = 0.01) and a shorter delay to complete cicatrization (median, 47 vs. 69 days) (P < 0.01). From three months onward, there was no difference in healing between the two groups, but two patients in the packing group had not healed at one year. Conversely, hematoma, perineal abscess, and reoperations were significantly more frequent (P < 0.01) in the primary closure group. CONCLUSION: Primary closure associated with drainage after abdominoperineal resection for carcinoma expedites perineal healing but morbidity is higher.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Irvin TT, Goligher JC. A controlled clinical trial of three different methods of perineal wound management following excision of the rectum. Br J Surg 1975;62:287–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Terranova O, Sandei F, Rebuffat C, Maruotti R, Pezzuoli G. Management of the perineal wound after rectal excision for neoplastic disease: a controlled clinical trial. Dis Colon Rectum 1979;22:228–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Robles Campos R, Garcia Ayllon J, Parrilla Paricio P,et al. Management of the perineal wound following abdominoperineal resection: prospective study of three methods. Br J Surg 1992;79:29–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Altemeier WA, Culbertson WR, Alexander JW, Sutorius D, Bossert J. Primary closure and healing of the perineal wound in abdominoperineal resection of the rectum for carcinoma. Am J Surg 1974;127:215–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Broader JH, Masselink BA, Oates GD, Alexander Williams J. Management of the pelvic space after proctectomy. Br J Surg 1974;61:94–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Baudot P, Keighley MR, Alexander Williams J. Perineal wound healing after proctectomy for carcinoma and inflammatory disease. Br J Surg 1980;67:275–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Marks CG, Monica Leighton, Ritchie JK, Hawley PR. Primary suture of the perineal wound following rectal excision for adenocarcinoma. Br J Surg 1976;63:322–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Maria G, Mattana C, Bonatti P, Pescatori M. Management of the perineal wound after rectal excision for carcinoma. Int Surg 1984;69:167–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dencker H, Norryd C, Tranberg KG. Management of the perineal wound after rectal excision. Acta Chir Scand 1973;139:568–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tompkins RG, Warshaw AL. Improved management of the perineal wound after proctectomy. Ann Surg 1985;202:760–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hilsabeck JR. The presacral space as a collector of fluid accumulations following rectal anastomosis: tolerance of rectal anastomosis to closed suction pelvic drainage. Dis Colon Rectum 1982;25:680–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Galandiuk S, Fazio VW. Postoperative irrigation-suction drainage after pelvic colonic surgery: a prospective randomized trial. Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:223–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rodary M, Hay JM, Fingerhut A, Oberlin P, French Association for Surgical Research. Conventional mechanical preparation versus whole-gut irrigation for elective colonic resection. A multicentric prospective controlled trial. Coloproctology 1987;9:87–93.

    Google Scholar 

  14. French Association for Surgical Research, Rodary M, Fingerhut A, Hay JM. Mechanical and antibiotic preparation of the bowel for elective colorectal surgery. Three-day versus one-day preparation. Coloproctology 1988;10:271–6.

    Google Scholar 

  15. French Association for Surgical Research, Rodary M, Fingerhut A, Hay JM. Povidone-iodine enemas and one-day antibiotic prophylaxis: a continuous search for the ideal bowel preparation for elective colonie surgery, a multicentre controlled trial. Coloproctology 1991;13:5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cancer Research Campaign Working Party. Trials and tribulations: thoughts on the organization of multicentre clinical studies. BMJ 1980;281:918–20.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Waits JO, Dozois RR, Kelly KA. Primary closure and continuous irrigation of the perineal wound after proctectomy. Mayo Clin Proc 1982;57:185–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mikulicz J. (Von)-Ueber die ausschaltung todter raüme aus der peritonealhöhle. Arch Klin Chir Berlin 1886;34:635–57.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Schwartz D, Flamant R, Lellouch J. Clinical trials. London: Academic Press, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ruckley CV, Smith AN, Balfour TW. Perineal closure by omental graft. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1970;131:300–2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Miles WE. Technique of the radical operation for cancer of the rectum. Br J Surg 1914;2:292–305.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Liebermann RC, Feldman S. Primary closure of the perineal wound with closed continuous transabdominal pelvic irrigation after rectal excision. Dis Colon Rectum 1984;27:526–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hartz RS, Poticha SM, Shields TW. Healing of the perineal wound. Arch Surg 1980;115:471–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Alpsan K, Singh A, Ahmad A. Clinical comparison of perineal wound management. Dis Colon Rectum 1980;23:564–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Krook JE, Moertel CG, Gunderson LL,et al. Effective surgical adjuvant therapy for high-risk rectal carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1991;324:709–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Goligher JC. Surgery of the anus, rectum and colon. 4th ed. London: Ballière Tindall, 1980:399–401.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Baum ML, Anish DS, Chalmers TC, Sacks HS, Smith H, Fagerstrom RM. A survey of clinical trials on antibiotic prophylaxis in colon surgery: evidence against further use of no treatment controls. N Engl J Med 1981;305:795–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Rosen HR, Parczell AP, Czerwenka E, Stierer MO, Spoula H, Wals H. Local gentamicin application for perineal wound healing following abdominoperineal rectum excision. Am J Surg 1991;162:438–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

About this article

Cite this article

Delalande, JP., Hay, JM., Fingerhut, A. et al. Perineal wound management after abdominoperineal rectal excision for carcinoma with unsatisfactory hemostasis or gross septic contamination: Primary closure vs. packing. Dis Colon Rectum 37, 890–896 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02052594

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02052594

Key words

Navigation