Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 13, 2026

Laparoscopic Non-Mesh Cerclage Pectopexy with Uterine Preservation for Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Published on: October 25, 2024
Perineal reconstruction after extra-levator abdominoperineal excision (eLAPE): a systematic review
Hisham Z Butt1, Murtaza K Salem, Badri Vijaynagar
1Department of Colorectal Surgery, Leicester General Hospital, University Hospitals of Leicester, Gwendolen Road, Leicester, Leicestershire, LE5 4PW, UK.
Purpose:
Extra-levator abdominal perineal excision of rectum (eLAPE) for low rectal tumours is associated with a lower incidence of circumferential resection involvement. However, there is no consensus on the ideal technique for perineal reconstruction following eLAPE. We thereby conducted a 5-year review of perineal closure outcomes following eLAPE.
Methods:
A systematic review of the literature was conducted between 2006 and July 2012. Perineal wound healing and complications in the post-operative period were examined.
Results:
Original data following eLAPE were found in 27 studies involving 963 individuals to inform a qualitative synthesis. Pooled analysis revealed that investigators most commonly employed either biomesh closure (12 studies, n = 149), myocutaneous flap closure (9 studies, n = 201) and primary closure (4, n = 578). The incidence of minor and major wound complications and perineal hernias across the latter groups was (27.5, 13.4 and 2.7 %), (29.4, 19.4 and 0 %) and (17.1, 6.4 and 1.2 %), respectively. Two studies utilised synthetic mesh closure (n = 4) and omentoplasty (n = 31). Objective assessment of wound healing was strikingly deficient across most studies, largely due to low level retrospective evidence lacking randomised controls. Modest cohort sizes with short follow-up data were evident due to the relative novelty of eLAPE.
Conclusion:
The paucity of high quality data, suggests that a prospective, randomised trial is needed to determine the ideal technique for perineal reconstruction following eLAPE.

