BACKGROUND: Perineal hernia (PH) is a late complication of abdominoperineal resection (APR) that may compromise a patient\'s quality of life. The frequency and risk factors for PH after robotic APR adopting recent rectal cancer treatment strategies remain unclear.
METHODS: Patients who underwent robotic APR for rectal cancer between December 2011 and June 2022 were retrospectively examined. From July 2020, pelvic reinforcement procedures, such as robotic closure of the pelvic peritoneum and levator ani muscles, were performed as prophylactic procedures for PH whenever feasible. PH was diagnosed in patients with or without symptoms using computed tomography 1 year after surgery. We examined the frequency of PH, compared characteristics between patients with PH (PH+) and without PH (PH-), and identified risk factors for PH.
RESULTS: We evaluated 142 patients, including 53 PH+ (37.3%) and 89 PH- (62.6%). PH+ had a significantly higher rate of preoperative chemoradiotherapy (26.4% versus 10.1%, p = 0.017) and a significantly lower rate of undergoing pelvic reinforcement procedures (1.9% versus 14.0%, p = 0.017). PH+ had a lower rate of lateral lymph node dissection (47.2% versus 61.8%, p = 0.115) and a shorter operative time (340 min versus 394 min, p = 0.110). According to multivariate analysis, the independent risk factors for PH were preoperative chemoradiotherapy, not undergoing lateral lymph node dissection, and not undergoing a pelvic reinforcement procedure.
CONCLUSIONS: PH after robotic APR for rectal cancer is not a rare complication under the recent treatment strategies for rectal cancer, and performing prophylactic procedures for PH should be considered.

Primary acquired perineal hernia is rare with only 100 reported cases in the literature. Emergency presentations of intestinal obstruction secondary to perineal hernia are very rare and to-date, there are only eight cases reported in the literature. We present a case of a 74-year-old lady who presented with a small bowel obstruction secondary to strangulated perineal hernia in the absence of pelvic exenteration or abdominoperineal resection requiring operative repair via combined open transabdominal and transperineal approach. To our knowledge, this case represents the first reported case of intestinal obstruction secondary to primary acquired perineal hernia in the absence of pelvic exenteration or abdominoperineal resection.

UNASSIGNED: This study aimed to describe the technique for the surgical repair of perineal hernia (PH) in dogs using a polypropylene mesh (PM) and to evaluate its outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: All dogs were placed in the Trendelenburg position. Castration and caudal celiotomy for cystopexy and colopexy were performed as needed. Ipsilateral perianal incision was performed in the affected hernia side. A PM was formed a cone-shape with suturing and placed in hernial foramen. The PH was repaired with suturing between PH and pelvic diaphragm including the sacrotuberous ligament, internal obturator muscle, and external anal sphincter muscle. The medical records of all dogs were reviewed to evaluate signalment, perioperative findings, postoperative complications, and prognosis.
UNASSIGNED: Of the 22 dogs, 15 were intact, and 7 were previously neutered. The median age and body weight were 10 years and 6.8 kg, respectively. The PH reconstruction using a cone-shaped PM was feasible in all dogs. The median operative time was 60.5 min for unilateral PH and 109 min for bilateral PH. Major postoperative complications occurred in seven dogs (32%), and three dogs (14%) had a recurrence of PH. In the long-term (> 2 weeks) follow-up period, 16 dogs (73%) had an excellent prognosis.
UNASSIGNED: Our study suggests that PH reconstruction surgery using a cone-shaped PM may be a viable treatment method for PH in dogs. Therefore, a cone-shaped PM could serve as an alternative treatment option for canine PH reconstruction.

UNASSIGNED: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of transperineal repair of secondary perineal hernia (SPH) using a mesh with a memory-recoil ring.
UNASSIGNED: Seven patients with SPH who underwent transperineal repair (TPR) between July 2010 and May 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. TPR was performed using a mesh with a memory-recoil ring.
UNASSIGNED: All SPHs developed after abdominoperineal resections in patients with anorectal malignancies. The median longitudinal and transverse diameters of the hernia orifice were 8 (7-10) cm and 6 (5-7) cm, respectively. In all cases, the mesh was fixed to the ischial tuberosity, residual levator muscle, coccygeus muscle, and coccyx after thorough dissection of the sac. The median operation time was 154 (142-280) min. Perioperative complications occurred in 2 cases (29%). One was enterotomy, which caused postoperative mesh infection requiring extraction of the mesh. The other was vaginal injury, which resulted in vaginal fistula but closed spontaneously. The median postoperative length of stay was 9 (5-14) days. No recurrence was observed during a median follow-up of 35 (9-151) months.
UNASSIGNED: TPR using a mesh with a memory-recoil ring is safe, feasible and promising technique for SPH repairs.

Perineal hernia is a rare complication of rectal surgery. Different types of surgical approach have been described, but none of them have proven their superiority. Although there are many methods of closing the defect, we selected two cases to present from a series of five cases, in which the perineal hernia was successfully resolved surgically using only the perineal approach. The reconstruction of the perineal floor and closure of the defect were performed using a synthetic polypropylene mesh. The significance of this Technical Note article lies in the fact that we describe, step by step, a surgical technique for perineal hernia using just a perineal approach.

To mitigate pelvic wound issues following perineal excision of rectal or anal cancer, a number of techniques have been suggested as an alternative to primary closure. These methods include the use of a biological/dual mesh, omentoplasty, muscle flap, and/or pelvic peritoneum closure. The aim of this network analysis was to compare all the available surgical techniques used in the attempt to mitigate issues associated with an empty pelvis.
An electronic systematic search using MEDLINE databases (PubMed), EMBASE, and Web of Science was performed (Last date of research was March 15th, 2023). Studies comparing at least two of the aforementioned surgical techniques for perineal wound reconstruction during abdominoperineal resection, pelvic exenteration, or extra levator abdominoperineal excision were included. The incidence of primary healing, complication, and/or reintervention for perineal wound were evaluated. In addition, the overall incidence of perineal hernia was assessed.
Forty-five observational studies and five randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion reporting on 146,398 patients. All the surgical techniques had a comparable risk ratio (RR) in terms of primary outcomes. The pooled network analysis showed a lower RR for perineal wound infection when comparing primary closure (RR 0.53; Crl 0.33, 0.89) to muscle flap. The perineal wound dehiscence RR was lower when comparing both omentoplasty (RR 0.59; Crl 0.38, 0.95) and primary closure (RR 0.58; Crl 0.46, 0.77) to muscle flap.
Surgical options for perineal wound closure have evolved significantly over the last few decades. There remains no clear consensus on the \"best\" option, and tailoring to the individual remains a critical factor.

Perineal hernia is a rare complication of pelvic surgeries that can occur in patients with perianal Crohn\'s disease (pCD) as a long-term outcome of surgeries for complex fistula treatment. We present a case of a symptomatic pCD male patient with multiple perianal surgeries who presents with anal pain, diarrhea, and discharge. Magnetic resonance imaging showed a perineal hernia in the ischioanal fossa violating the convergence of the left external sphincter complex. The hernia was treated with an open primary hernia repair via the perineal approach. It recurred after 3 months, and the patient underwent secondary hernia repair with gracilis muscle interposition and mesh placement. Unfortunately, this was complicated by superficial skin dehiscence and mesh extrusion, but the flap remained viable and the hernia repair was intact. Incidence, symptoms, risk factors, imaging findings, and management of perineal hernias are reviewed.

OBJECTIVE: Abdominoperineal resection (APR) remains a key procedure for the treatment of low rectal/anorectal cancers. However, perineal wound closure remains challenging, particularly in extralevator abdominoperineal resection (ELAPR) due to gapped tissue planes. Different approaches have been attempted to improve perineal wound repair. The aim of this study is to report our 6-year experience in perineal wound closure utilising biological mesh.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study using data from our prospectively maintained database, including patients who underwent APR with perineal mesh closure between 2016 and 2021.
RESULTS: 49  patients underwent APR with perineal mesh reconstruction for low rectal cancer during the 6-year period. Of these, 63% were males, with a mean age of 68 (± 11), and a mean BMI of 27.9 (± 13.7). 49% (24) of patients received neoadjuvant therapy. 88% (43) of patients underwent standard \"S-APR\" and only 12% (6) underwent ELAPR. Majority of procedures were laparoscopic (87.8%) with conversion rate of 6.9%. Mean length of stay was 11.7 (± 11.6). The perineal wound infection rate was 30% and only two patient required mesh removal due to entero-cutaneous perineal fistula and pelvic abscess. Perineal hernia was found in only two patients (4.1%). CRM was negative in 81.6% of the patients. Mean follow-up period was 29.2 (± 16.5) months, and disease recurrence occurred in 9 (18.3%) patients with average number of months for recurrence of 21 (± 7). Overall survival during the follow-up period was 91%.
CONCLUSIONS: Our series shows a favourable short- and medium-term outcome with routine insertion of mesh for perineal wound closure.

BACKGROUND: A symptomatic perineal hernia is an uncommon complication after abdominoperineal resection (APR). Repairs of such hernias can be achieved by usage of autologous flaps, synthetic mesh, or biologic mesh, which reduce bowel adhesions. Studies have shown that prophylactic repair of the pelvic floor with biologic mesh during APR, can reduce the incidence of perineal hernia.
METHODS: A 71-year-old woman, after extended APR (eAPR) with primary closure of pelvic floor with absorbable mesh, presented to our outpatient clinic with a symptomatic, extensive perineal hernia. The patient underwent repair of the perineal hernia using a synthetic mesh and a bilateral gluteal flap procedure. In post operative care, signs of surgical site infection and a fluid collection demonstrated in a CT-scan, compelled a surgical drainage. A clear fluid negative for bacterial growth was drained and antibiotic treatment was initiated. After drainage, surgical site showed signs of significant improvement and patient was eventually discharged.
CONCLUSIONS: The rise in reported incidence of perineal hernia after eAPR coupled with the scarcity of data regarding the preferable repair technique suggests that there is a significant need for further prospective comparative studies.

A perineal hernia is a subtype of pelvic floor hernias, and especially primary perineal hernias are rare. No guideline exists on how to handle this type of hernia. Therefore, the primary aim of this scoping review was to investigate the surgical treatment options in adults for primary perineal hernias.
This systematic scoping review included studies with original data on at least one adult operated for a primary perineal hernia. Studies from 1990 and forward were included to cover contemporary surgical techniques. Three databases were systematically searched: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL. Furthermore, a snowball search was performed. The primary outcome was to narratively present details about the surgical techniques. The secondary outcomes were to give an overview of symptoms, diagnostics, intraoperative complications, and postoperative course.
Twenty-two case studies reported repairs on 22 patients suffering from primary perineal hernia. Common symptoms were pain and discomfort, and a bulge was often found during physical examination. Different diagnostic methods were used, and MRI-scans most often found an abnormality. Different surgical procedures can repair the condition, however, laparotomy and the use of a permanent mesh was the most common option. Far from all studies reported on outcomes, but no severe intraoperative event was reported, and the postoperative course was overall uneventful.
Primary perineal hernia is a very rare condition presenting with pain/discomfort and bulging and it can be visualized with different imaging modalities. Laparotomy with a permanent mesh was often used for repair, and the postoperative course was mostly uneventful.