<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE root>
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.2" xml:lang="en"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">Surgery and Oncology</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title xml:lang="en">Surgery and Oncology</journal-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Хирургия и онкология</trans-title></trans-title-group></journal-title-group><issn publication-format="electronic">2949-5857</issn><publisher><publisher-name xml:lang="en">Publishing House ABV Press</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">816</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.17650/2949-5857-2026-16-1-63-70</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="en"><subject>ORIGINAL REPORT</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="ru"><subject>ОРИГИНАЛЬНОЕ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЕ</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="article-type"><subject>Research Article</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title xml:lang="en">A method for perineal hernia prevention after extralevator abdominoperineal excision. Analysis of an interim cohort</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Метод профилактики промежностной грыжи после экстралеваторной брюшно-промежностной экстирпации прямой кишки. Анализ промежуточной когорты</trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0009-0006-7208-8218</contrib-id><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Ozdoev</surname><given-names>Aslan M.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Оздоев</surname><given-names>Аслан Магомедович</given-names></name></name-alternatives><address><country country="RU">Russian Federation</country></address><email>surgeon.ozdoy@gmail.com</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0641-0572</contrib-id><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Baychorov</surname><given-names>A. B.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Байчоров</surname><given-names>А. Б.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><address><country country="RU">Russian Federation</country></address><email>surgeon.ozdoy@gmail.com</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9439-9873</contrib-id><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Danilov</surname><given-names>М. A.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Данилов</surname><given-names>М. А.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><address><country country="RU">Russian Federation</country></address><email>surgeon.ozdoy@gmail.com</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/></contrib></contrib-group><aff-alternatives id="aff1"><aff><institution xml:lang="en">A. S. Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow Healthcare Department</institution></aff><aff><institution xml:lang="ru">ГБУЗ «Московский клинический научно-практический центр им. А. С. Логинова Департамента здравоохранения г. Москвы»</institution></aff></aff-alternatives><pub-date date-type="pub" iso-8601-date="2026-03-15" publication-format="electronic"><day>15</day><month>03</month><year>2026</year></pub-date><volume>16</volume><issue>1</issue><issue-title xml:lang="en"/><issue-title xml:lang="ru"/><fpage>63</fpage><lpage>70</lpage><history><date date-type="received" iso-8601-date="2025-07-20"><day>20</day><month>07</month><year>2025</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement xml:lang="en">Copyright ©; 2026, ABV-press</copyright-statement><copyright-statement xml:lang="ru">Copyright ©; 2026, АБВ-пресс</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2026</copyright-year><copyright-holder xml:lang="en">ABV-press</copyright-holder><copyright-holder xml:lang="ru">АБВ-пресс</copyright-holder><license><ali:license_ref xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/">https://onco-surgery.info/jour/about/editorialPolicies</ali:license_ref></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://onco-surgery.info/jour/article/view/816">https://onco-surgery.info/jour/article/view/816</self-uri><abstract xml:lang="en"><p><bold>Background.</bold> Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (eAPR) improves oncological outcomes in low rectal cancer but creates a large pelvic floor defect and carries a high risk of perineal hernia – a significant late complication that markedly impairs quality of life. Mesh reinforcement for prevention of the hernia is under active investigation, yet evidence on transabdominal synthetic mesh placement remains scarce.</p> <p><bold>Aim.</bold> To evaluate feasibility, safety, and preliminary effectiveness of transabdominal synthetic mesh placement for perineal hernia prevention following eAPR in an interim patient cohort.</p> <p><bold>Materials and methods.</bold> A prospective comparative study with historical controls was performed. The study group (<italic>n</italic> = 13) consisted of patients who underwent laparoscopic eAPR with prophylactic transabdominal placement of anti-adhesive synthetic mesh between September 2023 and May 2024. The control group (<italic>n</italic> = 13) consisted of retrospectively matched patients after eAPR without pelvic floor reconstruction (2020–2023). Groups were comparable by key clinical characteristics. Follow-up was 12 months and included clinical examination and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging every 3 months. Interim descriptive analysis.</p> <p><bold>Results. </bold>Operative time significantly longer in the study group (296.9 ± 38.3 min <italic>versus</italic> 209.6 ± 37.7 min; <italic>p</italic> &lt; 0.001). No differences in blood loss, Clavien–Dindo ≥III complications, or duration of hospital stay were observed. Perineal hernia developed in 1 / 13 (8 %) of study patients (after early mesh explantation due to complication) <italic>versus</italic> 10 / 13 (77 %) of controls (<italic>p </italic>= 0.001). Symptomatic hernias requiring reintervention were 0 in the study group and 40 % in the control group. Median time to hernia detection in the control group was 6 months (3–9).</p> <p><bold>Conclusion.</bold> Interim data indicate acceptable safety and good feasibility of transabdominal synthetic mesh placement. The technique is associated with substantially reduced rates of perineal hernia development, including clinically relevant cases. Definitive conclusions require recruitment of target sample size and longer-term follow-up.</p></abstract><trans-abstract xml:lang="ru"><p><bold>Введение.</bold> Экстралеваторная брюшно-промежностная экстирпация (эБПЭ) прямой кишки улучшает онкологические результаты при раке нижнеампулярного отдела, но сопряжена с формированием обширного дефекта тазового дна и высоким риском промежностной грыжи – одного из наиболее значимых поздних осложнений, существенно ухудшающих качество жизни. Профилактика грыж с помощью сетчатых имплантатов активно изучается, однако данные о трансабдоминальной установке синтетических протезов остаются ограниченными.</p> <p><bold>Цель исследования</bold> – оценить выполнимость, безопасность и предварительную эффективность трансабдоминальной профилактической пластики тазового дна синтетическим сетчатым имплантатом после эБПЭ прямой кишки в промежуточной когорте пациентов.</p> <p><bold>Материалы и методы.</bold> Проведено проспективное сравнительное исследование с исторической контрольной группой. Основная группа (<italic>n</italic> = 13) – пациенты, оперированные с сентября 2023 г. по май 2024 г. с лапароскопическим доступом и установкой синтетической сетки с антиадгезивным покрытием трансабдоминально. Контрольная группа (<italic>n </italic>= 13) – ретроспективно подобранные пациенты после эБПЭ прямой кишки без пластики (2020–2023 гг.). Группы сопоставимы по основным клинико-анамнестическим характеристикам. Наблюдение до 12 мес включало клинический осмотр и магнитно-резонансную томографию малого таза каждые 3 мес. Представлен помежуточный описательный анализ.</p> <p><bold>Результаты. </bold>Продолжительность операции в основной группе была достоверно больше (296,9 ± 38,3 мин против 209,6 ± 37,7 мин; <italic>p</italic> &lt; 0,001). Различий в объеме кровопотери, осложнениях по Clavien–Dindo ≥III степени и койко-днях не выявлено. Промежностная грыжа зарегистрирована у 1 (8 %) пациента основной группы (после удаления сетки из-за раннего осложнения) и у 10 (77 %) – в контрольной (<italic>p </italic>= 0,001). Симптоматические грыжи, потребовавшие повторной операции, в основной группе не отмечены, в контрольной они составили 40 %. Медиана времени выявления грыжи в контрольной группе – 6 мес (3–9).</p> <p><bold>Заключение.</bold> Промежуточные результаты демонстрируют приемлемую безопасность и хорошую выполнимость трансабдоминальной установки синтетической сетки. Метод ассоциируется с выраженным снижением частоты промежностных грыж, включая клинически значимые формы. Для окончательной оценки эффективности необходим набор полной выборки и длительное наблюдение.</p></trans-abstract><kwd-group xml:lang="en"><kwd>perineal hernia</kwd><kwd>extralevator abdominoperineal excision</kwd><kwd>prevention</kwd><kwd>synthetic mesh</kwd><kwd>transabdominal placement</kwd><kwd>rectal cancer</kwd><kwd>pelvic floor reconstruction</kwd></kwd-group><kwd-group xml:lang="ru"><kwd>промежностная грыжа</kwd><kwd>экстралеваторная брюшно-промежностная экстирпация</kwd><kwd>профилактика</kwd><kwd>синтетический сетчатый имплантат</kwd><kwd>трансабдоминальная пластика</kwd><kwd>рак прямой кишки</kwd><kwd>тазовое дно</kwd></kwd-group><funding-group/></article-meta></front><body></body><back><ref-list><ref id="B1"><label>1.</label><mixed-citation>Holm T., Ljung A., Heggmark T. et al. Extended abdominoperineal resection with gluteus maximus flap reconstruction of the pelvic floor for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 2007;94(2):232–8. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.5506</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B2"><label>2.</label><mixed-citation>Tao Y., Han J.G., Wang Z.J. Extralevator abdominoperineal excision for advanced low rectal cancer: where to go. World J Gastroenterol 2020;26(22):3012–23. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v26.i22.3012</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B3"><label>3.</label><mixed-citation>Miyoshi N. Perineal wound closure after extralevator abdominoperineal resection using biological mesh. Ann Laparosc Endosc Surg 2017;2:163. DOI: 10.21037/ales.2017.10.06</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B4"><label>4.</label><mixed-citation>Blok R.D., Brouwer T.P.A., Sharabiany S. et al. Further insights into the treatment of perineal hernia based on the experience of a single tertiary centre. Colorectal Dis 2020;22(6):694–702. DOI: 10.1111/codi.14952</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B5"><label>5.</label><mixed-citation>Sayers A.E., Patel R.K., Hunter I.A. Perineal hernia formation following extralevator abdominoperineal excision. Color Dis 2015;17(4):351–5. DOI: 10.1111/codi.12843</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B6"><label>6.</label><mixed-citation>Sharabiany S., Brouwer T.P.A., Kreisel S.I. et al. Mesh, flap or combined repair of perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection – a systematic review and meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis 2022;24(11):1285–94. DOI: 10.1111/codi.16224</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B7"><label>7.</label><mixed-citation>Blok R.D., Sharabiany S., Stoker J. et al. Cumulative 5-year results of a randomized controlled trial comparing biological mesh with primary perineal wound closure after extralevator abdominoperineal resection (BIOPEX-study). Ann Surg 2022;275(1)e37–44. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004763</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B8"><label>8.</label><mixed-citation>Musters G.D., Klaver C.E.L., Bosker R.J.I. et al. Biological mesh closure of the pelvic floor after extralevator abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: a multicenter randomized controlled trial (the BIOPEX-study). Ann Surg 2017;265(6):1074–81, DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002020</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B9"><label>9.</label><mixed-citation>Kreisel S.I., Sharabiany S., Rothbarth J. et al. Quality of life in patients with a perineal hernia. Eur J Surg Oncol 2023;49(12):107114. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2023.107114</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B10"><label>10.</label><mixed-citation>Kent I., Gilshtein H., Montorfano L. et al. Perineal reconstruction after extralevator abdominoperineal resection: differences among minimally invasive, open, or open with a vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap approaches. Surgery 2021;170(5):1342–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2021.05.027</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B11"><label>11.</label><mixed-citation>Touny A., Othman H., Maamoon S. et al. Perineal reconstruction using pedicled vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap (VRAM). J Surg Oncol 2014;110(6):7527. DOI: 10.1002/jso.23692</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B12"><label>12.</label><mixed-citation>Tao Y., Han J.G., Wang Z.J. Comparison of perineal morbidity between biologic mesh reconstruction and primary closure following extralevator abdominoperineal excision: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 2021;36(5):893–902. DOI: 10.1007/s00384-020-03820-7</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B13"><label>13.</label><mixed-citation>Zaheer Ahmad N., Abbas M.H., Al-Naimi N.M.A.B., Parvaiz A. Meta-analysis of biological mesh reconstruction versus primary perineal closure after abdominoperineal excision of rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 2021;36(3):477–92. DOI: 10.1007/s00384-020-03827-0</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B14"><label>14.</label><mixed-citation>Atema J.J., de Vries F.E.E., Boermeester M.A. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the repair of potentially contaminated and contaminated abdominal wall defects. Am J Surg 2016;212:982–95. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2016.05.003</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B15"><label>15.</label><mixed-citation>Buell J.F., Flaris A.N., Raju S. et al. Long-term outcomes in complex abdominal wall reconstruction repaired with absorbable biologic polymer scaffold (poly-4-hydroxybutyrate). Ann Surg Open 2021;2(1):e032. DOI: 10.1097/AS9.0000000000000032</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B16"><label>16.</label><mixed-citation>Black A.J., Karimuddin A., Raval M. et al. The impact of laparoscopic technique on the rate of perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection of the rectum. Surg Endosc 2021;35(6):3014–24. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-07746-7</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B17"><label>17.</label><mixed-citation>Kasai S., Kagawa H., Shiomi A. et al. Incidence and risk factors for perineal hernia after robotic abdominoperineal resection: a single-center, retrospective cohort study. Tech Coloproctol 2024;28:79. DOI: 10.1007/s10151-024-02961-z</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B18"><label>18.</label><mixed-citation>Manabe T., Mizuuchi Y., Tsuru Y. et al. Retrospective analysis of risk factors for postoperative perineal hernia after endoscopic abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer. BMC Surg 2022;22:88. DOI: 10.1186/s12893-022-01538-7</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B19"><label>19.</label><mixed-citation>Sanders D.L., Kingsnorth A.N. The modern management of incisional hernias. BMJ 2012;344:e2843. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.e2843</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>
