4.4 Article

Comparison of inferior gluteal artery perforator flaps versus vertical rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flaps in the reconstruction of perineal wounds

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2023.06.020

关键词

Fasciocutaneous flap; Musculocutaneous flap; Perineal wound; Abdominoperineal resection; Pelvic exenteration

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the impact of different methods on postoperative complications following chemoradiotherapy and abdominoplevic tumor resection. The results showed no significant difference in postoperative complications between VRAM (vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap) and BIGAP/IGAP (bilateral/inferior gluteal artery perforator fasciocutaneous flap) closure techniques. Therefore, flap reconstruction is a viable choice for these challenging defects.
Background: Achieving a healed perineal wound following chemoradiotherapy and abdominoperineal resection (APR) is challenging for surgeons and patients. Prior studies have shown trunk-based flaps, including vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) flaps, are superior to both primary closure and thigh-based flaps; however, there has been no direct comparison with gluteal fasciocutaneous flaps. This study evaluates postoperative complications after various methods of perineal flap closure of APR and pelvic exenteration defects. Methods: Retrospective review of patients who underwent APR or pelvic exenteration from April 2008 through September 2020 was analyzed for postoperative complications. Flap closure techniques, including VRAM, unilateral (IGAP), and bilateral (BIGAP) inferior gluteal artery perforator fasciocutaneous flaps, were compared. Results: Of 116 patients included, the majority underwent fasciocutaneous (BIGAP/IGAP) flap reconstruction (n = 69, 59.6%), followed by VRAM (n = 47, 40.5%). There were no significant differences between group patient demographics, comorbidities, body mass index, or cancer stage. There were no significant differences between BIGAP/IGAP and VRAM groups in minor complications (57% versus 49%, p = 0.426) or major complications (45% versus 36%, p = 0.351), including major/minor perineal wounds. Conclusions: Prior studies have shown flap closure is preferable to primary closure after APR and neoadjuvant radiation but lack consensus on which flap offers superior postoperative morbidity. This study comparing outcomes of perineal flap closure showed no significant difference in postoperative complications. Fasciocutaneous flaps are a viable choice for the reconstruction of these challenging defects.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据