Primary perineal hernia: a case report and review of the literature

Abstract Pelvic floor hernias are extremely rare. This study presents a successfully treated case of primary perineal hernia and takes a look at the existing literature. Case The case of a 75-year-old female patient with a great perineal hernia is presented. Diagnosis was secured by magnetic resonance tomography. The pelvic defect was successfully treated by primary suture with Prolene. Discussion The literature shows many different approaches for treatment of perineal hernia, such as open or laparoscopic mesh repair, and perineal, abdominal or combined access. Our case confirms that primary closure of the hernial orifice through an abdominal approach is also feasible.     

Laparoscopic repair of a perineal hernia

Introduction

Perineal hernias are rare occurrences with statistics ranging from <1 to 3% incidence after open abdominoperineal resection (APR). The incidence of perineal hernia after laparoscopic APR is less certain due to the relatively recent advent of laparoscopic proctectomy. Here we discuss an occurrence of a perineal hernia after a laparoscopic APR and its subsequent laparoscopic repair with mesh.

Discussion

Repair of a perineal hernia can be technically challenging, with a variety of approaches each with its own risk of potential complications. Laparoscopic advancements have allowed a theoretically less invasive approach while having greater view of the necessary anatomical landmarks to achieve safe and tension-free repair of such hernias.

Conclusion

There are several case reports available to describe perineal repair but the numbers remain skewed due to the sparse reporting of complications post APR surgery. This may in fact be due to the asymptomatic aspect these hernias can have. Laparoscopic repair is a challenging yet viable approach to the correction of such occurrences.     

Éventrations périnéales après exérèse rectale ou pelvienne. Prise en charge actuelle et prévention

Perineal hernias are a rare complication of major pelvic excisions. Their incidence (approximately 1% after abdominoperineal excision and 3% after pelvic exenteration) is probably underestimated, asymptomatic cases being unreported. Many repair procedures are presently used to solve this difficult problem. Abdominal (including laparoscopic) approach, perineal approach or both have been reported, with or without the implantation of prosthetic mesh or muscular flaps. Indications are based on the assessment of symptomatic burden, and the local and general conditions. Recurrence following repair is not rare, illustrating the difficulty to solve efficiently this condition. Prevention of perineal hernias is mandatory especially in patients at risk of impaired healing following extensive perineal excision. A primary closure of the perineal wound is recommended with addition of muscular flaps as soon as local or general risk of defective healing process is suspected.     

Tension free perineal hernioplasty: report of a case

Summary Perineal hernias are extremely rare in clinical practice, most being secondary to radical pelvic surgery. Different surgical approaches have been described, with primary closure as well as with the use of flaps and mesh. We report the case of a 35 year old female with a primary anterior perineal hernia, that was repaired using a cone of polypropylene mesh through a perineal approach under regional anaesthesia. Two years later she remains asymptomatic without recurrence. We believe this is the first report of such repair for a primary perineal hernia.     

Perineale Hernie

Background

Abdominoperineal excision of the rectum is a standard procedure in deep-lying rectal cancer if the sphincter muscle cannot be preserved. Besides common complications such as impotence, disorders of urinary tract function, and prolonged wound healing, perineal hernia is a rare long-term phenomenon. Surgical repair can be done either through a transabdominal approach or transperineally. Long-term results show that both methods are feasible in this situation. We report the third case of perineal hernia in German literature.

Case report

A 66-year-old man presented with a painful perineal tumor 2 years after abdominoperineal excision for rectal adenocarcinoma. Perineal hernia was confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging, and the patient underwent open mesh repair through a perineal approach.

Discussion

A number of surgical techniques have been described for the repair of perineal hernias. These include abdominal, perineal, and combined or laparoscopic approaches with or without mesh repair. The transabdominal route seems to have some advantages over the perineal approach. In cases of small hernias, the latter can however be the option of choice. In the presented case of an uncomplicated hernia, we decided on the perineal approach including mesh implantation to keep the trauma as small as possible.     

Laparoscopic repair of Morgagni hernia

Background Foramen of Morgagni hernias are rare diaphragmatic hernias. They account for 3–5% of all diaphragmatic hernias and the majority of the cases are asymptomatic. They are caused by trauma, obesity or pregnancy. With the advancements of laparoscopic surgery, laparoscopic repair has become an excellent alternative to open repair for Morgagni hernias. We report five cases of Morgagni hernia repaired with the laparoscopic approach in conjunction with a review of the literature. Patients A retrospective review comprised five patients who had a Morgagni hernia repaired with a laparoscopic approach. Data from these patients were collected for the period between February 2001 and May 2005. Results The average age at operation was 61. The anatomic pathology was detected preoperatively using X-rays and computerized tomography (CT) scans in four of our patients. Hernia was detected incidentally in one patient during an elective cholecysectomy. Three hernias were right-sided and two were left-sided. The contents of the hernias were omentum and transverse colon in the majority of the patients. The hernia was repaired with a laparoscopic approach in all patients. Four patients had composite mesh repair and one patient had primary closure with nonabsorbable sutures. There were no postoperative complications and all patients tolerated laparoscopic repair. There were also no recurrences during follow-up. Conclusions Laparoscopic repair is a candidate to be a standard treatment for Morgagni-type hernias. It is an effective and safe technique and can be performed by all compotent general surgeons with a certain learning curve. It has several advantages relative to the open operation.     

Perineal hernias

Perineal hernia is a protrusion of the intraabdominal viscera through a defect in the pelvic floor, and may be classified as primary (congenital or acquired) or secondary (postoperative). When symptomatic, surgical repair is warranted and may be performed using abdominal, perineal, combined abdominoperineal, or laparoscopic approaches. In rare instances, a primary repair may be performed, although in the majority of cases, successful repair of a perineal hernia requires the use of a synthetic graft, bioprosthetic graft, or autologous flap. This article reviews the classification, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and surgical management of perineal hernias.     

Laparoscopic repair of postoperative perineal hernia

Background Perineal hernia is an uncommon complication following abdominoperineal resection of the rectum. There are only a few reports concerning the management of this unusual problem. Various methods of repair have been described, but none of them is well established. The purpose of our study is to present our experience and to discuss the pathogenesis and the different surgical repair techniques of these hernias. Methods Between September 2003 and December 2004, four patients with perineal hernia observed several months following laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for adenocarcinoma of the lower rectum were treated. All patients underwent the transabdominal laparoscopic approach using synthetic mesh for repair. Results In all patients, the hernia was repaired by the laparoscopic transabdominal approach using synthetic mesh. The blood loss was minimal and mean operating time was 54 ± 10 min. There were no cases that required conversion to laparotomy and there were no intraoperative or postoperative complications. Beginning of soft diet intake and ambulation times were on the second day following surgery. The average length of hospital stay was 4 ± 1 days. During 8.3 ± 6 months of follow-up, there was no recurrence of the hernia. Conclusion Perineal hernias are rare complications of major pelvic surgeries. Symptomatic hernias should be repaired surgically. The transabdominal laparoscopic approach using synthetic mesh provides an appropriate solution for these hernias.     

How we do it: repair of large perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection

Background

Symptomatic perineal hernia is a rare complication after abdominoperineal resection (APR). Management of these hernias is challenging. The recurrence rate after surgical repair is high because of the difficulty of prosthetic material fixation; there is no consensus regarding the best method of repair.

Methods

We introduced a novel combined laparoscopic-perineal dual fixation technique in the repair of perineal hernias after APR. This technique begins with a perineal approach under laparoscopic vision. After excision of the hernia sac, the mesh is introduced and fixed anteriorly to the urogenital diaphragm and laterally to the sacrotuberous ligament and the surrounding scar tissue. The perineal incision is then closed. Next, the mesh is fixed to the sacrum with ProTack^® and is fixed again to the sacrotuberous ligament via a laparoscopic approach.

Results

The dual fixation repair method is successful and without difficulties, with no recurrence at 13-month follow-up.

Conclusion

Our laparoscopic-perineal dual fixation method is a good alternative method for large perineal hernia repair after APR.

     

Using the uterus to close a pelvic defect after primary perineal posterior hernia repair: Report of a case

Perineal hernias rarely develop spontaneously, and their treatment is controversial. We report a case of a primary perineal posterior hernia in an 81-year-old woman, who presented with progressive bulging in the perineal area, preventing comfortable excretion. The diagnosis was established by herniography. We operated via an abdominal approach and repaired the hernia by reconstructing the pelvic floor using the uterus. To our knowledge, reconstruction using the uterus to repair a pelvic defect has not been reported before.     

Management of primary and recurrent inguinal hernia by surgeons from the South West of England

BACKGROUND: The National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) has advocated open mesh repair for primary hernia but suggested laparoscopic repair may be considered for recurrent hernias. AIM: To establish current surgical practice by surgeons from the South West of England. METHODS: A postal survey was distributed to 121 consultant surgeons and a response rate of 75% was achieved. RESULTS: The majority (86%) of the surgeons surveyed performed hernia repairs, and most (95%) of these used open mesh repair as standard for primary inguinal hernia. Only 8% used laparoscopic repair routinely for primary hernias. Few consultants (only 28%) were able to quote formally audited hernia recurrence rates. A total of 90% of respondents still employed open mesh repair routinely for recurrent hernias; however, if mesh had been used for the primary repair, this figure fell to 55%. Some 7% of respondents recommended laparoscopic repair for recurrent hernia, but this increased to 17% if the primary repair was done with mesh. All laparoscopic surgeons in the South West employed the totally extraperitoneal approach (TEP). There was a range of opinion on the technical demands of repair of a recurrent hernia previously mended with mesh; the commonest cause of mesh failure was thought to be a medial direct recurrence (insufficient mesh medially). CONCLUSIONS: Current surgical practice for primary hernias in the South West England reflects NICE guidelines although many surgeons continue to manage recurrent hernias by further open repair. In this survey, there was anecdotal evidence to suggest that hernia recurrence can be managed effectively by open repair.     

Perineal hernia,another incisional hernia?

A secondary perineal hernia is a type of incisional hernia of the pelvic floor, occurring after pelvic surgery such as abdominoperineal excision of the rectum and pelvic exenteration. Our aim is to review the available literature on the subject. This report reviews a recently repaired case, followed by a review of the available literature on the presenting condition, concentrating on approaches and methods of repair. Perineal hernias are uncommon, and not many surgeons face them. It is not known if and how these hernias could be prevented. The method and approach of repair should probably be individualized, but we believe that the use of a mesh is important in the repair of such hernias because of the significant tissue defect prevailing in most of the cases, in addition to the unhealthy tissues related to the use of radiotherapy. The laparoscopic approach has been recently utilized and its use is expected to increase.     

The feasibility of adopting laparoscopic incisional hernia repair in general surgery practice: early outcomes in an unselected series of patients

A laparoscopic approach to incisional hernia repair has been shown to be safe and effective in selected patients. We report our early outcomes following laparoscopic ventral/incisional hernia repair (LVHR) in an unselected series of patients encountered in general surgery practice. All patients referred with incisional hernia were offered a laparoscopic repair using prosthetic mesh. Patients were not excluded from laparoscopic approach on the basis of age, previous surgery, defect size, intraperitoneal mesh, body mass index (BMI), comorbidities, or abdominal wall stomas. We followed 28 consecutive patients who underwent LVHR (17 primary, 11 recurrent hernias). Laparoscopic repair was completed in 27 patients with a mean operative time of 141.6 +/- 11.9 minutes. There were no intraoperative complications. The mean size of the abdominal wall defects was 153.4 +/- 27.5 cm and the mean mesh size was 349.2 +/- 59.1 cm. The mean hospital stay was 3.7 +/- 0.3 days. Nine patients developed large wound seromas; all spontaneously resolved. Our experience suggests that LVHR is feasible as a primary approach to most incisional hernias encountered in general surgery practice.     

Recurrent perineal hernia repair: a novel approach

Purpose

Postoperative perineal hernias are rare complications from procedures, which compromise the pelvic floor, mainly abdominoperineal resection, proctocolectomy, and partial or total pelvic exenteration. Surgical repair can be accomplished through abdominal, laparoscopic, or transperineal approaches.

Methods

We present a case report of a 70-year-old man who underwent two prior operations for recurrent perineal hernia and was ultimately successfully treated with a third operation, a synthetic mesh redo procedure that utilized a synthetic mesh system marketed for women with pelvic organ prolapse.

Results

Although there is no "gold standard" for perineal hernia repair, our patient had multiple surgeries employing a variety of approaches. Final success was achieved using a mesh system with improved fixation to secure pelvic ligaments, using an exclusive perineal approach. Now, more than five years following the final surgery, the patient remains symptom free with no clinical evidence of perineal hernia recurrence.

Conclusions

To date, this is the only report of using this mesh system in a male. The advantages of using this mesh system are (1) exclusive perineal approach without the accompanying risks of abdominal or laparoscopic approach; (2) improved fixation of mesh to secure pelvic ligaments; and (3) lightweight, flexible, and large mesh shape that can easily be trimmed to allow versatility in procedures.     

Routine laparoscopic repair of primary unilateral inguinal hernias — a viable alternative in the Day Surgery Unit?

In September 2004 the NICE institute revised its guidelines on the management of primary inguinal hernias to include laparoscopic repair of unilateral hernias. While published trials have confirmed the equal efficacy of the two approaches, it is not clear what impact a switch to laparoscopic repairs would have on resources and patient throughput in a Day Surgery Unit. METHOD: All elective hernia repairs performed in a one-year period were considered. Data were obtained from operation notes, discharge summaries and out-patient records. Operating times are routinely documented in theatre. RESULTS: Of the 351 operations studied, 150 were performed laparoscopically predominantly by an extraperitoneal (TEP)approach. Six required conversion to an open procedure. There was no significant difference in operating times, total theatre time or recovery room times between the two groups (51 min, 75 min and 34 min for the laparoscopic group and 53 min, 74 min and 31 min for the open repair group). Among the laparoscopic repair group there were 48 bilateral hernias and 20 recurrent hernias while 190 of the 201 open repairs were for primary unilateral hernias. Rates of overnight stay and immediate complications were similar between the groups though haematoma was more common following open repair (7 vs 2). CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference in theatre times, immediate complication rates or rates of overnight stay between open and laparoscopic repair of inguinal hernia. Routine laparoscopic repair of primary unilateral inguinal hernia is a viable alternative within the Day Surgery Unit.     

Laparoscopic mesh repair of transverse rectus abdominus muscle and deep inferior epigastric flap harvest site hernias

INTRODUCTION: The transverse rectus abdominus muscle (TRAM) flap is one of the treatment options for breast reconstruction. TRAM flap reconstruction donor site herniation rates range from 1% to 8.8%. Traditionally, these hernias were treated by an open primary repair with or without the addition of onlay mesh. We report laparoscopic approach to treat TRAM and deep inferior epigastric perforator flap (DIEP) harvest site hernias with mesh. CASES: We treated 5 patients, 4 from TRAM and 1 from DIEP flap harvest site hernias during the period of October 2003 to January 2006. Two of these patients underwent previous open mesh repair with recurrence. All of these patients underwent laparoscopic hernia repair using polytetrafluoroethylene dual mesh. Follow-up ranged 6 to 31 months without any recurrences. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic mesh repair of ventral hernias located at TRAM and DIEP flap harvest sites can be performed safely and with a low rate of recurrence.     

Medium-term follow-up confirms the safety and durability of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair with PTFE

BACKGROUND: Ventral abdominal wall hernias are common lesions and may be associated with life-threatening complications. The application of laparoscopic principles to the treatment of ventral hernias has reduced recurrence rates from a range of 25% to 52% to a range of 3.4% to 9%. In this study, we review our experience and assess the clinical outcome of patients who have undergone laparoscopic repair of ventral hernias. METHODS: We reviewed the outcome of 79 patients with more than 1 year of follow-up who underwent laparoscopic ventral hernia repair between March 1996 and December 2001. Patient demographics, hernia characteristics, operative parameters, and clinical outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 79 patients, 37 were males. Mean age was 55.8 years (range 28-81). Sixty-eight patients had incisional hernias, including 17 with recurrent hernias. Eleven patients had primary ventral hernias. The mean defect size was 103 cm(2) (range 4-510); incarceration was present in 22 patients (27.8%), and multiple (Swiss-cheese) defects in 20 (25.3%). Laparoscopic expanded polytetrafluoroethylene mesh repair by the modified Rives-Stoppa technique was completed in 78 (98.7%). One conversion occurred because of bowel injury. The mean operating time was 110 minutes (range 45-210) and mean hospital stay was 1.7 days (range 0-20), with 46 patients (58.2%) being discharged within 24 hours of surgery. Complications included seroma formation (3), chronic pain (3), prolonged ileus (1), hematoma formation (1), and missed bowel injury (1) for a complication rate of (11.4%). There were no deaths. After a follow-up of up to 6 years (a mean of 34 months), there were 4 recurrences (5%). CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic repair of ventral hernias is safe, effective, and durable with minimal morbidity. It is particularly successful in patients with recurrent lesions. The laparoscopic approach to ventral hernia repair should be considered the standard of care.     

Techniques of perineal hernia repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundPerineal hernias are rare, underreported and poorly studied complications of extensive pelvic surgeries. Their management is challenging, with currently no treatment algorithm available.MethodMEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched. Studies comprising at least 3 patients who underwent surgical perineal hernia repair were included. The primary outcome was perineal hernia recurrence. The secondary outcomes were overall complications and surgical site occurrences.ResultsTwenty-nine studies were included, comprising 325 patients undergoing 347 repairs. Overall complications were 33% (95% confidence interval 24%–43%) in the entire cohort, 31% (19%–44%) after perineal repair, 39% (14%–67%) after abdominal repair, and 36% (19%–53%) after mesh repair (20% with biological, 46% with synthetic mesh). The surgical site occurrence rate was 18% (8%–29%). The overall recurrence rate was 22% (15%–29%). Recurrence after perineal repair was 19% (10%–29%): 20% with mesh (25% with biological, 19% with synthetic), 24% with primary repair, and 39% with flap repair. Recurrence after an abdominal repair was 18% (11%–26%): 16% with laparoscopic, 12% with open, 16% with mesh (24% with biological, 16% with synthetic), 30% with primary, and 25% with flap repair. No significant differences could be found in the meta-analysis regarding overall complications and recurrence.ConclusionSynthetic mesh repair seems to be associated with a lower recurrence rate than other techniques, especially after an abdominal approach. The perineal and abdominal approaches appear to be safe, with similar recurrence rates. The combined approach seems promising, but more evidence is needed.