Cost-utility of Two Strategies of Perineal Reconstruction After Abdominoperineal Resection for Anorectal Carcinoma
-
- STATUS
- Recruiting
-
- End date
- Feb 11, 2024
-
- participants needed
- 140
-
- sponsor
- University Hospital, Toulouse
Summary
Abdominoperineal resection performed for anorectal tumors leaves a large pelvic and perineal defect causing a high rate of morbidity of the perineal wound (40 - 60 %). Biological meshes offer possibility for a new standard of perineal wound reconstruction. Perineal filling with biological mesh is expected to increase quality of life by reducing perineal morbidity.
Description
Perineal wound problems after abdominoperineal resection (APR) in the context of cancer are frequent. These types of resection problems occur because of wound complications caused by large perineal defects. Indeed, perineal wound complications, perineal abscess, wound dehiscences, chronic fistulas and sinuses lengthen the hospital stays. Futhermore, the standardization of the surgery since the late 2000s and the extralevator technique lead a larger defect and increase i perineal complications.
Several strategies are used to decrease the complication rate. Closure by direct approximation of the pelvic muscles leads to a rate of major complication up to 57% depending on the series. Musculocutaneous flaps help to reduce this rate (16- 65%) but they generate their own morbidity, require experience and increase the costs of care. Finally, the use of biologic meshes since the beginning of 2010 seems to have improve the healing process. However, results are still variable and the only randomized study comparing direct closure and mesh closure showed no significant results at one year. Another ongoing randomized trial is comparing gluteus maximus flap to mesh closure and focusing on physical performances.
This increase in post-operative complications and their consequences causes an increase in costs. In addition, they affect the patients' quality of life and lead to a loss of productivity. From an oncological point of view, perineal scarring problems can cause a delay in the adjuvant therapeutic sequence. Few studies have highlighted the efficiency of perineal wound complications, using cost-effectiveness analyses. In order to clarify the best strategy comparing primary and mesh closure in term of cost effectiveness on perineal healing after ELAPE, we designed this randomized controlled trial.
Details
| Condition | Abdominoperineal Resection, abdomino-perineal excision |
|---|---|
| Treatment | Biological mesh, Primary perineal wound closure |
| Clinical Study Identifier | NCT02841293 |
| Sponsor | University Hospital, Toulouse |
| Last Modified on | 11 March 2021 |
How to participate?
,
You have contacted , on
Your message has been sent to the study team at ,
What happens next?
- You can expect the study team to contact you via email or phone in the next few days.
- Sign up as volunteer to help accelerate the development of new treatments and to get notified about similar trials.
You are contacting
Primary Contact
Additional screening procedures may be conducted by the study team before you can be confirmed eligible to participate.
Learn moreIf you are confirmed eligible after full screening, you will be required to understand and sign the informed consent if you decide to enroll in the study. Once enrolled you may be asked to make scheduled visits over a period of time.
Learn moreComplete your scheduled study participation activities and then you are done. You may receive summary of study results if provided by the sponsor.
Learn moreSimilar trials to consider
Not finding what you're looking for?
Sign up as a volunteer to stay informed
Every year hundreds of thousands of volunteers step forward to participate in research. Sign up as a volunteer and receive email notifications when clinical trials are posted in the medical category of interest to you.
Sign up as volunteer