Propensity Score Adjusted Comparison of Pelviperineal Morbidity With and Without Omentoplasty Following Abdominoperineal Resection for Primary Rectal Cancer

Robin D. Blok, Joske de Jonge, Marlou A. de Koning, Anthony W. H. van de Ven, Jarmila D. W. van der Bilt, Anna A. W. van Geloven, Roel Hompes, Wilhelmus A. Bemelman, Pieter J. Tanis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Abdominoperineal resection is associated with a high incidence of perineal complications, and whether this is reduced by an omentoplasty is still unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the impact of omentoplasty on pelviperineal morbidity in patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer. DESIGN: This was a retrospective comparative cohort study using propensity score analyses to reduce potential confounding. SETTING: The study was undertaken in 2 teaching hospitals and 1 university hospital. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection for primary rectal cancer between 2000 and 2017 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main end points were primary perineal wound healing at 30 days and overall and specific pelviperineal morbidity until the end of the study period. RESULTS: Among 254 included patients, 106 had an omentoplasty. The primary perineal wound healing rate at 30 days was similar for omentoplasty and no omentoplasty (65% vs 60%; p = 0.422), also after adjusting for potential confounding by propensity score analysis (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.45-1.75). Being free from any pelviperineal complication at 6 months (75% vs 79%; p = 0.492), absence of any pelviperineal morbidity until 1 year (54% vs 49%; p = 0.484), and incidence of persistent perineal sinus (6% vs 10%; p = 0.256) were also similar in both groups. The unadjusted higher perineal hernia rate after omentoplasty (18% vs 7%; p = 0.011) did not remain statistically significant after regression analysis including the propensity score (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.46-3.88). Complications related to the omentoplasty itself were observed in 8 patients, of whom 6 required reoperation. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by the retrospective and nonrandomized design causing some heterogeneity between the 2 cohorts. CONCLUSION: In this multicenter study using propensity score analyses, the use of omentoplasty did not lower the incidence or the duration of pelviperineal morbidity in patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer, and omentoplasty itself was associated with a risk of reoperation. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A918.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)952-959
JournalDiseases of the Colon and Rectum
Volume62
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Aug 2019
Externally publishedYes

Cite this