Abdominal wall reconstruction after cytoreduction surgery-hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy

Anthony J Scholer; Joseph B Oliver; Jesus Rosado; Jimmy S Patel; Lindsay J Lynch; Kevin M Spiegler; Karen Houck; Ravi J Chokshi

doi:10.1016/j.jss.2017.08.002

Abdominal wall reconstruction after cytoreduction surgery-hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy

J Surg Res. 2018 Jan:221:266-274. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2017.08.002. Epub 2017 Oct 5.

Authors

Anthony J Scholer¹, Joseph B Oliver¹, Jesus Rosado¹, Jimmy S Patel¹, Lindsay J Lynch¹, Kevin M Spiegler¹, Karen Houck², Ravi J Chokshi³

Affiliations

¹ Department of Surgery, Rutgers University, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey.
² Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rutgers University, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey.
³ Department of Surgery, Section of Surgical Oncology, Rutgers University, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey. Electronic address: chokshrj@njms.rutgers.edu.

PMID: 29229138
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2017.08.002

Abstract

Background: Cytoreduction surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) improve survival and decrease recurrence of peritoneal metastasis in a select population of patients. Abdominal wall resection is often needed to achieve complete CRS and the extent of abdominal wall resection may necessitate abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR). We sought to investigate if postoperative morbidity and mortality was increased in patients who underwent AWR with CRS-HIPEC (AWR group) compared to CRS-HIPEC without AWR (non-AWR group) and to identify if patient, tumor, and operative risk factors were associated with poor outcomes following AWR. We postulate that AWR is a safe and viable treatment option in appropriately selected patients with peritoneal disease.

Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted from 2012 to 2015. Demographics, comorbidities, intraoperative variables, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed and compared between the non-AWR group and the AWR group.

Results: A total of 30 patients underwent CRS-HIPEC at our institution; 19 recruited in non-AWR group and 11 in the AWR arm. Median follow-up was 19.1 mo for the non-AWR group and 15.6 mo for AWR. Overall survival and complications were not significantly different between groups. Six patients in the non-AWR group and three patients in AWR group died during the follow-up period (32% versus 27%, P = 0.75). Grade III/IV Clavien-Dindo complications were similar in AWR compared to non-AWR group (64% versus 50%, P = 0.46) however estimated blood loss (1000 mL versus 450 mL, P = 0.01) and operative time (663 min versus 510 min, P = 0.02) were significantly increased in the AWR group.

Conclusions: The results of this study demonstrate that AWR is a safe and viable option and can improve wound closure and strength in select patient populations undergoing CRS-HIPEC. AWR is not associated with an increase in mortality or complication rate. Future studies will need larger sample sizes and randomization to identify patient and operative factors that increase morbidity with AWR and identify the ideal timing of AWR.

Keywords: Abdominal wall reconstruction; Cytoreduction surgery; Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy; Outcomes.

Published by Elsevier Inc.

MeSH terms

Abdominal Wall / surgery*
Cytoreduction Surgical Procedures / mortality*
Female
Humans
Hyperthermia, Induced*
Male
Middle Aged
Neoplasms / mortality
Neoplasms / therapy*
New Jersey / epidemiology
Retrospective Studies