Table 2.

Case series.

Reference	n	Study period	M:F	Age	Treatment of primary disease	Approach to perineal hernia repair	Mesh type	Follow-up	Outcome	Complications
Musters et al. (19)	15	50 months	9:6	62 ± 11 years mean	Conventional APR (n, %) 5 (33) Extralevator APR (n, %) 5 (33) Ischio-anal APR (n, %) 4 (27) Intersphincteric APR (n, %) 1 (7)	Transperineal 14 Laparoscopic Omental plasty + Transperinal 1	Permacol™ 3 Strattice™ 12 Myocutaneous flap + Biological mesh 3	17 months median (IQR 12–24)	Clinical recurrence 7 (47%)	Wound infection 3 patients
Sayers et al. (10)	14/54	54 months	40:14	69.5 years median (31–90)	eLAPE 20 Neo-CRT 52 Biological mesh 2 Myocutaneous flap 6 (5 rectus and 1 gracilis) Simple suture in 46	Not reported	Biologic mesh 5/8 Myocutaneous flap 3/8	57.5 months, median (29–61)	Biologic mesh, 1/5 had recurrence Myocutaneous flap, 1/3 had recurrence	NR
Abbas and Garner (20)	7	Over 66 months	4:3	64 years median (44–77)	0.5 after lap APER 1 had gluteal rotation flap All had RT 1 had adjuvant CT	Lap repair 5 Lap converted to open 1 Perineal approach 1 (sublay)	Synthetic composite 4 Biological 2 Direct suture repair 1	25 months (16–64)	No recurrences	NR
de Campos et al. (15)	7	1995–2004	NR	NR	35 patients in one center had pre op CT. 4/35 developed PERH 3 patients from another center		Dura mater patch via laparotomy 1 Bovine pericardium 1 via perineal approach Bovine pericardium via abdominal approach 1 Conservative 1	NR	NR	NR