Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 211–214 | Cite as

Perineal Wound Complications Following Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision: Experience of a Regional Cancer Center

  • Niharika Aggarwal
  • Ramakrishnan Ayloor Seshadri
  • Antony Arvind
  • Sunil Bhanu Jayanand
Original Article


Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) results in a large perineal defect which needs reconstruction by a flap or biological mesh. The incidence of perineal wound complications is thought to be higher following an ELAPE compared to conventional abdominoperineal excision (APE). WE aimed to analyze the perineal wound complications following ELAPE in our institution. This was a retrospective analysis of all consecutive patients who underwent an APE (conventional and ELAPE) procedure in our institution between 2012 and 2015. We retrieved the demographic data, treatment data, and pathological data from the case records. Reconstruction of the perineal defect after a prone perineal dissection was performed using a local muscle flap. The incidence of perinealwound complications, hospital stay, and time to initiate adjuvant chemotherapy was compared between the two groups. A total of 71 patients underwent APE over a period of 41 months of which 21 patients underwent ELAPE. The perineal dissection during ELAPE was done in the prone position in 18 patients and in the supine position in 3 patients. Perineal wound complications were seen in 9 patients (42%) who underwent ELAPE compared to 17 patients (34%) who underwent conventional APE (p = 0.52). The mean duration of hospital stay was significantly longer in patients who underwent ELAPE when compared to those who underwent conventional APE (22.9 ± 3.6 days vs 14.6 ± 1.0 days, p = 0.03). The median interval between ELAPE and initiation of adjuvant chemo was 54 days (range 32–120 days) compared to 50 days (range 30–100 days) in patients undergoing conventional APE. A delay in initiating adjuvant chemotherapy of more than 12 weeks was seen in 4 patients (19%) following ELAPE. The incidence of perineal wound complications following ELAPE in this study was comparable to that reported in literature. Although the hospital stay following ELAPE was significantly longer than that following conventional APE in our institution, it did not unduly prolong initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy. Improving the perineal reconstruction techniques and selecting patients who will benefit from ELAPE may help to reduce the wound complications.


Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) Intra-op perforation (IOP) Circumferential resection margin (CRM) Perineal wound complications Gluteal muscle flap 


  1. 1.
    Holm T, Ljung A, Haggmark T et al (2007) Extended abdominoperineal resection with gluteus maximus flap reconstruction of the pelvic floor for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 94:232–238CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    West NP, Anderin C, Smith KJE, Holm T, Quirke P (2010) Multicentre experience with extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer. Br J Surg 97:588–599CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hanif Z, Bradley A, Hammad A, Mukherjee A (2016) Extra levator abdominoperineal excision: a retrospective cohort study. Ann Med Surg 10:32–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stelzner S, Hellmich G, Schubert C, Puffer E, Haroske G, Witzigmann H (2011) Short-term outcomes extra-levator abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer. Int J Color Dis 26:919–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clavien PA, Barkun J et al (2009) The Clavien Dindo classification of surgical complications: five year experience. Ann Surg 250(2):187–196CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Prtyz M, Angenete E, Ekelund J, Haglind E (2014) Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for rectal cancer—short term results from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry. Selective use of ELAPE warranted. Int J Color Dis 29(8):981–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ortiz H, Ciga MA, Armendariz P, Kreisler E, Codina Cadazor A, Barbadillo G, Garcia Granero E, Roig JV, Biondo S (2014) Multicentre propensity score matched analysis of conventional versus extended abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer. BJS 101:874–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Asplund D, Haggling E, Angenete E (2012) Outcome of extralevator abdominoperineal excision compared with standard surgery: results from a single centre. Color Dis 14:1191–1196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Asplund D, Prytz M, Block D, Hagling E, Angenete E (2015) Persistent perineal morbidity is common following abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer. Int J Color Dis 30:1563–1570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Nardi P, Summo V, Vignali A, Capretti G (2015) Standard versus extralevator abdominoperineal low rectal cancer excision outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 22(9):2997–3006. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yang Y, Xu H, Shang Z, Chen S, Chen F, Qiming D, Luo L, Zhu L, Shi B (2015) Outcome of extralevator abdominoperineal excision over conventional abdominoperineal excision for low rectal tumor: a meta-analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med 8(9):14855–14862PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhou X, Sun T, Xie H, Zhang Y, Zeng H, Fu W (2015) Extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the short-term outcome. Color Dis 17(6):474–481. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yu HC, Peng H, He XS, Zhao RS (2014) Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes after extralevator abdominoperineal excision and standard abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Color Dis 29(2):183–191. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Colov EP, Klein M, Gogenur I (2016) Wound complications and perineal pain after extralevator versus standard abdominoperineal excision: a nation-wide study. Dis Colon Rectum 59:813–821CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Althumairi AA, Canner JK, Ahuja N, Sacks JM, Safar B, Efron JE (2016) Time to chemotherapy after abdominoperineal resection: comparison between primary closure and perineal flap reconstruction. World J Surg 40:225–230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    How P, West NP, Brown G (2014) An MRI-based assessment of standard and extralevator abdominoperineal excision specimens: time for a patient tailored approach? Ann Surg Oncol 21(3):822–828CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Association of Surgical Oncology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Niharika Aggarwal
    • 1
  • Ramakrishnan Ayloor Seshadri
    • 1
  • Antony Arvind
    • 2
  • Sunil Bhanu Jayanand
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgical OncologyCancer Institute (WIA)ChennaiIndia
  2. 2.Consultant Plastic Surgeon, Cancer Institute (WIA)ChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations