Effect of differing flap reconstruction strategies in perineal closure following advanced pelvic oncological resection: a retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Advancing approaches to locally invasive pelvic malignancy creates a large tissue defect resulting in perineal wound complications, dehiscence, and perineal hernia. Use of reconstructive flaps such as vertical rectus abdominus myocutaneous (VRAM) flap, gracilis, anterolateral thigh and gluteal flaps have been utilised in our institution to address perineal closure. The authors compared outcomes using different flap techniques along with primary perineal closure in advanced pelvic oncological resection. METHODS: A prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing advanced pelvic oncological resection in a single tertiary hospital was retrospectively analysed. This study included consecutive patients between 2014 and 2021 according to the Strengthening The Reporting of Cohort Studies in Surgery (STROCSS) criteria. Primary outcome measures were the frequency of postoperative perineal complications between primary closure, VRAM, gluteal and thigh (anterolateral thigh and gracilis) reconstruction. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-two patients underwent advanced pelvic resection with perineal closure. Of these, 40 patients underwent extra-levator abdominoperineal resection, and 70 patients underwent pelvic exenteration. Sixty-four patients received reconstructive flap closure, which included VRAM (22), gluteal (21) and thigh flaps (19). Perineal infection and dehiscence rates were low. Infection rates were lower in the flap group despite a higher rate of radiotherapy ( P <0.050). Reoperation rates were infrequent (<10%) but specific for each flap, such as donor-site hernia following VRAM and flap dehiscence after thigh flap reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who are at high risk of postoperative perineal infections, reconstructive flap closure offers acceptable outcomes. VRAM, gluteal and thigh flaps offer comparable outcomes and can be tailored to the individual patient.

Vulvar reconstruction using the "lotus petal" fascio-cutaneous flap.

INTRODUCTION: Vulvar reconstruction using the "lotus petal" fascio-cutaneous flap offers a relatively novel means to restore symmetry and functionality after extirpative gynecologic or oncologic procedures. We sought to assess the success rates and morbidity in a large series of consecutively treated patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 59 consecutive cases of lotus petal flaps performed at a single institution to more accurately assess success and complication rates. RESULTS: We identified 80 flaps performed among the 59 patients between September 1, 2008 and March 30, 2013. The median (range) age was 59 years (24-89) and the median (range) BMI was 27 kg/m(2) (19-34). The indications for vulvar/perineal excision were as follows: 39 (66.1%) vulvar carcinoma or melanoma, 12 (20.3%) vulvar dysplasia, 5 (8.5%) colorectal disease and 3 (5.1%) cases of hidradenitis suppurativa. The mean defect area, determined by post-fixation pathology specimen was 29 cm(2). Medical or surgical complications occurred in 36% of patients of which superficial wound separation was the most common (15%). There were no cases of complete flap loss, but partial loss occurred in 7 (8.8%) cases. 3 (5.1%) patients required re-operation prior to discharge with one case requiring skin grafting. Delayed surgical revision was required in 4 patients for partial flap loss (2) or stricture/stenosis (2). CONCLUSION: The lotus petal flap is safe for use in gynecologic reconstruction, with acceptable short- and long-term complication rates. Previous reports of smaller series likely underestimate the risk of complications through case selection.