4.2 Article

Complex Reconstruction After Sarcoma Resection and the Role of the Plastic Surgeon A Case Series of 298 Patients Treated at a Single Center

Journal

ANNALS OF PLASTIC SURGERY
Volume 80, Issue 1, Pages 59-63

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000001190

Keywords

sarcoma; reconstructive surgery; plastic surgery; microsurgery

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: More than 1000 new patients present to the London Sarcoma Unit each year and between 5% and 10% require plastic surgery intervention. Advancements in radiotherapy and chemotherapy protocols combined with higher expectations for limb preservation has led to increased reconstructive challenges. Frequently, primary closure is achievable; however, larger tumors often require specialist reconstruction. Study Design: Aretrospective chart reviewof all referred patients fromthe London Sarcoma Unit requiring reconstruction between February 2006 and January 2015 was performed. Patients who underwent primary amputation were excluded. Results: The total number of operations performed was 298 and the mean follow-up was 16 months (12-46 months). 51% of patients had major comorbidities. Patients could be separated into early (0-1 week postoperatively, n = 167) and late reconstructions (> 1 week postoperatively, n = 131). 32 patients were reconstructed with skin grafts, 137 patients were managed with regional flaps and 129 patients were treated with free flaps. Conclusions: A patient with 3 or more major comorbidities resulted in a significantly increased risk of reconstructive failure (P < 0.05). Our experience has lead us to adhere to the following guidelines: (1) All patients should be reviewed in a multidisciplinary team meeting. (2) After primary excision, patients should be managed with a vacuum dressing until margins are clear. (3) Definitive reconstruction should be performed by a specialist reconstructive surgeon.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available