Biological Mesh Closure of the Pelvic Floor After Extralevator Abdomino Perineal Resection for Rectal Cancer

Summary

Rationale: Approximately 800 abdominoperineal resections (APR) are performed for rectal cancer each year in the Netherlands. The extralevator approach (eAPR) reduces the rate of positive margins and improves oncological outcome in distal rectal cancer. However, wider excisions increase wound healing problems and development of perineal hernia. This has resulted in a progressive increase of the use of musculocutaneous flaps and biological meshes associated with a substantial increase of costs, which is not supported by proper data.

Objective: The aim of this study is to determine the cost-effectiveness of pelvic floor reconstruction using a biological mesh after standardized eAPR with neo-adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy.

Study design: This is a multicenter study in which patients undergoing an eAPR are randomized between standard care using primary closure of the perineum and the experimental arm with assisted closure using a biological mesh.

Study population: Patients with a clinical diagnosis of primary rectal cancer who are scheduled for eAPR after neo-adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy. A total number of 104 patients will be randomized.

Intervention: The intervention in the experimental arm consists of suturing a biological mesh derived from porcine dermis in the pelvic floor defect, followed by perineal closure similar to the control arm.

Main study parameters/endpoints: The primary endpoint is the percentage of uncomplicated perineal wound healing (Souphampton wound score less than II at day 30). Secondary endpoints are hospital stay, incidence of perineal hernia, quality of life, and costs.

Nature and extent of the burden and risks associated with participation, benefit and group relatedness: Both primary perineal closure and biological mesh assisted closure are being performed in daily clinical practise. The potential benefit resulting from participation of the study in patients randomized for biological mesh assisted closure may be a higher chance of uncomplicated perineal wound healing and lower perineal hernia rate. On the other hand, the use of a biological mesh has been associated with increased postoperative pain and seroma formation.

Conditions

• Rectal Cancer

Interventions

PROCEDURE

Biological mesh assisted perineal closure

The eAPR procedure will be performed in an identical way as described for the control arm of the study, and this is preferably followed by an omental plasty. The intervention in the experimental arm consists of suturing an acellular biological mesh derived from porcine dermis in the pelvic floor defect (Strattice™, 6x10 cm). The mesh will be sutured at each side of the coccyx or distal sacrum with Prolene or PDS to the discretion of the surgeon. Laterally, the mesh is attached to the remainings of the levator complex and, anteriorly, to the transverse perineal muscle or posterior vaginal wall. A suction drain will be inserted and positioned on top of the mesh. The perineal subcutaneous fat and skin will be subsequently closed in layers similar to primary simple closure as performed in the standard arm.

PROCEDURE

Primary perineal closure

The perineal phase of the APR will be performed according to the principles of an extralevator APR, which means that the levator muscles will be laterally transected in order to leave a muscular cuff around the tumour. The coccyx will not be routinely resected, but only if indicated based on surgical exposure or oncological principles. The extent of excision of perineal skin and ischioanal fat will be as limited as oncologically justified. Preferably, an omental plasty is positioned in the pelvic cavity following resection. Closure of the perineum in the control arm consists of stitching the perineal subcutaneous fat together using interrupted Vicryl sutures in one or two layers. Subsequently, the skin will be closed using interrupted sutures according to the preference of the surgeon. Placement of a transabdominal or transperineal drain will be at the discretion of the surgeon.

Sponsors & Collaborators

• LifeCell

  collaborator INDUSTRY

• Academisch Medisch Centrum - Universiteit van Amsterdam (AMC-UvA)

  lead OTHER

Principal Investigators

• Gijsbert D. Musters, M.D. · Academisch Medisch Centrum - Universiteit van Amsterdam (AMC-UvA)

• Willem A. Bemelman, Prof, PhD, M.D. · Academisch Medisch Centrum - Universiteit van Amsterdam (AMC-UvA)

• Harm J. Rutten, M.D. PhD · Catharina Ziekenhuis Eindhoven

• Baljit Singh, M.D. PhD · Leicester hospital, Leicester

• Marcel G.W. Dijkgraaf, M.D. · Academisch Medisch Centrum - Universiteit van Amsterdam (AMC-UvA)

Study Design

Allocation

RANDOMIZED

Purpose

TREATMENT

Masking

SINGLE

Model

PARALLEL

Eligibility

Min Age

18 Years

Sex

ALL

Healthy Volunteers

No

Timeline & Regulatory

Start

2013-03-08

Primary Completion

2014-09-01

Completion

2015-09-01

Countries

• Netherlands

Study Locations