Omental flaps in patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer
Following abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer, perineal wound complications are common. Omental flap creation may allow for decreased morbidity. The aim of this study was to assess wound complications in rectal cancer patients undergoing APR with and without the addition of an omental flap.
The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Proctectomy targeted database from 2016 to 2017 was used to identify all patients undergoing APR for rectal cancer. The primary outcomes were wound complications such as superficial site infection, deep wound infection, organ space infection, and wound dehiscence.
There were 3063 patients identified. One hundred seventy-three (5.6%) patients underwent APR with an omental flap repair while 2890 (94.4%) patients underwent APR without an omental flap repair. Patients in both groups were similar with regard to age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesia class, and neoadjuvant cancer treatment (all p > 0.05). Patients who underwent an omental flap repair were significantly more likely to have a postoperative organ space infection (10.4% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.04). There was no significant difference in rates of superficial site infection, deep wound infection, wound dehiscence, or reoperation between the two patient groups. In multivariable analysis, omental flap creation was independently associated with organ space infection (OR 1.72, 95%CI 1.02–2.90, p = 0.04).
This is the largest study to evaluate omental flap use in rectal cancer patients undergoing APR. Omental flaps are independently associated with organ space infection.
KeywordsRectal cancer Omental flap Postoperative infection
All authors had substantial contributions to design of work, drafted work, made final approval, and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
Compliance with ethical standards
- 4.Chessin DB, Hartley J, Cohen AM, Mazumdar M, Cordeiro P, Disa J, Mehrara B, Minsky BD, Paty P, Weiser M, Wong WD, Guillem JG (2005) Rectus flap reconstruction decreases perineal wound complications after pelvic chemoradiation and surgery: a cohort study. Ann Surg Oncol 12(2):104–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Blok RD, de Jonge J, de Koning MA, van de Ven AWH, van der Bilt JDW, van Geloven AAW, Hompes R, Bemelman WA, Tanis PJ (2019) Propensity score adjusted comparison of pelviperineal morbidity with and without omentoplasty following abdominoperineal resection for primary rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000001349
- 14.Kochar K, Marecik S, Prasad LM, Park J (2016) Omental pedicle flap does not decrease the incidence of bowel obstruction after abdominoperineal resection. Am Surg 82(11):e328–e330Google Scholar
- 15.ACS (2019). ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/acs-nsqip. Accessed 1 Apr 2019
- 17.ACS (2019). ACS NSQIP Participant Use Data File. https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/acs-nsqip/participant-use. Accessed 1 Apr 2019
- 20.Oida T, Kawasaki A, Mimatsu K, Kano H, Kuboi Y, Fukino N, Kida K, Amano S (2012) Omental packing with continuous suction drainage following abdominoperineal resection. Hepatogastroenterology. 59(114):380–383Google Scholar
- 21.Hay JM, Fingerhut A, Paquet JC, Flamant Y (1997) Management of the pelvic space with or without omentoplasty after abdominoperineal resection for carcinoma of the rectum: a prospective multicenter study. The French Association for Surgical Research. Eur J Surg 163(3):199–206Google Scholar
- 24.Hultman CS, Sherrill MA, Halvorson EG, Lee CN, Boggess JF, Meyers MO, Calvo BA, Kim HJ (2010) Utility of the omentum in pelvic floor reconstruction following resection of anorectal malignancy: patient selection, technical caveats, and clinical outcomes. Ann Plast Surg 64(5):559–562Google Scholar