RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced vulvoperineal cancer require a multidisciplinary treatment approach to ensure oncological safety, timely recovery, and the highest possible quality of life (QoL). Reconstructions in this region often lead to complications, affecting approximately 30% of patients. Flap design has evolved towards perforator-based approaches to reduce functional deficits and (donor site) complications, since they allow for the preservation of relevant anatomical structures. Next to their greater surgical challenge in elevation, their superiority over non-perforator-based approaches is still debated. METHODS: To compare outcomes between perforator and non-perforator flaps in female vulvoperineal reconstruction, we conducted a systematic review of English-language studies published after 1980, including randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case series. Data on demographics and surgical outcomes were extracted and classified using the Clavien-Dindo classification. We used a random-effects meta-analysis to derive a pooled estimate of complication frequency (%) in patients who received at least one perforator flap and in patients who received non-perforator flaps. RESULTS: Among 2576 screened studies, 49 met our inclusion criteria, encompassing 1840 patients. The overall short-term surgical complication rate was comparable in patients receiving a perforator (n = 276) or a non-perforator flap (n = 1564) reconstruction (p* > 0.05). There was a tendency towards fewer complications when using perforator flaps. The assessment of patients' QoL was scarce. CONCLUSIONS: Vulvoperineal reconstruction using perforator flaps shows promising results compared with non-perforator flaps. There is a need for the assessment of its long-term outcomes and for a systematic evaluation of patient QoL to further demonstrate its benefit for affected patients.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Vascularized lymph node transfer (VLNT) entails the autologous relocation of lymph nodes to a lymphedematous region of the body, whereas lymphaticovenous anastomosis (LVA) creates a direct bypass between the lymphatic and venous system. Both techniques are meant to lastingly bolster the local lymphatic drainage capacity. This study compared safety and effectiveness of VLNT and LVA in patients with chronic breast cancer related lymphedema (BCRL). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from our encrypted database composed of patients with chronic BCRL who were treated with either VLNT or LVA and had a minimum follow-up of two years. Patient-specific variables analyzed included pre- and postoperative arm circumferences, lymphedema stages and postoperative complications. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients met the inclusion criteria, of which 96 patients demonstrated a complete follow-up period of two years. The VLNT group displayed larger preoperative circumferential measurements, evident in both in the isolated examination of the affected arm, as well as when adjusted for the contralateral unaffected arm. Significant reduction in arm volume was achieved by both groups. However, VLNT demonstrated superior relative reduction rates than LVA, neutralizing any significant arm size disparities after 24 months. Surgery duration was slightly longer for VLNT than LVA. Postoperative complications, predominantly minor, were exclusively observed in the VLNT group. CONCLUSIONS: Both VLNT and LVA offer significant improvement for patients suffering from chronic BCRL. VLNT shows an even greater potential for improvement in more severe cases of BCRL, but involves a higher risk for (mostly minor) complications.