Premium
A comparison of the cost of primary closure or rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap closure of the perineum after abdominoperineal excision
Author(s) -
Woodfield J.,
HulmeMoir M.,
Ly J.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
colorectal disease
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.029
H-Index - 89
eISSN - 1463-1318
pISSN - 1462-8910
DOI - 10.1111/codi.13690
Subject(s) - medicine , surgery , perineum , abdominoperineal resection , demographics , wound closure , retrospective cohort study , wound healing , cancer , colorectal cancer , demography , sociology
Aim Perineal wound complications following abdominoperineal resection continue to be a major challenge. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and cost of primary closure (PC) and rectus abdominis myocutaneous (RAM) flap reconstruction. Method This was a retrospective case review of consecutive patients by one surgeon over 11 years. Patient demographics, risk factors, operative details and complications were identified. Inpatient and outpatient costs were calculated. Results A total of 31 patients underwent a RAM reconstruction and 37 a PC. There were no significant differences in the incidence of wound complications or in the overall costs for either method of perineal closure. When there were no complications the mean costs were significantly higher in the RAM group ($20 948 vs $17 189, P = 0.005), mainly because of the longer operating time. However, the costs of perineal wound complications were greater in the PC group (8394 vs 25 911, P = 0.012). These wounds took longer to heal (median 2 months vs 5.5 months, P = 0.005) and more often required a further reconstructive surgical procedure (RAM 0 vs PC 8, P = 0.006). Conclusion This is the first study reporting on the cost implications of PC and RAM flap reconstruction. The overall costs were similar. This implies appropriate clinical selection when choosing between procedures. While the RAM flap is more expensive to perform, the finding that it decreases the clinical severity and cost of perineal wound complications supports its use when there is a high risk of perineal wound complications.