RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Ablative surgery for vulvar cancer can involve the resection of perineum, vagina, urethra, groins, mons pubis, and abdominal wall creating complex defects. In our opinion, ALT flap is an ideal flap for reconstruction, because of low incidence of complications, long pedicle outside the radiotherapy field, capability of carrying fascia and muscle, possibility of sensate reconstruction, and low donor site morbidity. The purpose of this report is to describe our experience with ALT flap for reconstruction after vulvar cancer extirpative surgery, discussing our indications for complex defects and focusing on its versatility. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 15 cases of complex postoncologic gynecological wounds, reconstructed with 16 pedicled ALT flap, after vulvar cancer ablative surgery between 2014 and 2016. Age of the patients ranged from 44 to 77, with mean age of 62.6. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: The flap size ranged from 12 × 8 cm to 22 × 15 cm., in two cases we harvested vastus lateralis to fill the dead space after pelvic exenteration. In nine flaps, we could include only 1 perforator, in 7 we could use two, 5 were septocutaneous and 18 myocutaneous with a pedicle length ranging from9cm.to15cm.We had no flap necrosis.3 flaps showed dehiscence of a part of the wound that healed by dressings. In one case of obese patient the donor site showed partial wound edge necrosis, and required secondary grafting. During follow-up that ranged from 1 month to 2 years, cancer relapsed locally in 5 patients. Global performance and specific pain improved after surgery. CONCLUSION: ALT flap should be included in the first line options for reconstructions of complex defects resulting from vulvar cancer surgery because of its reliability and versatility. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Microsurgery 37:516-524, 2017.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/cirugía , Colgajo Miocutáneo/trasplante , Procedimientos de Cirugía Plástica/métodos , Neoplasias de la Vulva/cirugía , Cicatrización de Heridas/fisiología , Adulto , Anciano , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/patología , Estudios de Cohortes , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Supervivencia de Injerto , Humanos , Microcirugia/métodos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Colgajo Miocutáneo/irrigación sanguínea , Calidad de Vida , Estudios Retrospectivos , Medición de Riesgo , Muslo/cirugía , Resultado del Tratamiento , Vulva/cirugía , Neoplasias de la Vulva/patologíaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To create a comprehensive algorithmic approach to reconstruction after vulvar cancer ablative surgery, which includes both traditional and perforator flaps, evaluating anatomical subunits and shape of the defect. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 80 cases of reconstruction after vulvar cancer ablative surgery, performed between June 2006 and January 2016, transferring 101 flaps. We registered the possibility to achieve the complete wound closure, even in presence of very complex defects, and the postoperative complications. On the basis of these experience, analyzing the choices made and considering the complications, we developed an algorithm to help with the selection of the flap in vulvoperineal reconstruction after oncologic ablative surgery for vulvar cancer. RESULTS: We employed eight types of different flaps, including 54 traditional fasciocutaneous V-Y flaps, 23 rectus abdominis myocutaneous flaps, 11 anterolateral thigh flaps, three V-Y gracilis myocutaneous flaps, three free style perforators V-Y flaps from the inner thigh, two Limberg flaps, two lotus flaps, two deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap, and one superficial circumflex iliac artery perforator flap. The structures most frequently involved in resection were vulva, perineum, mons pubis, groins, vagina, urethra and, more rarely, rectum, bladder, and lower abdominal wall. CONCLUSION: The algorithm we implemented can be a useful tool to help flap selection. The key points in the decision-making process are: anatomical subunits to be covered, overall shape and symmetry of the defect and some patient features such as skin laxity or previous radiotherapy. Perforator flaps, when feasible, must be considered standard in vulvoperineal reconstruction, although in some cases traditional flaps remain the best choice.