International journal of colorectal disease · 2022
Tailored concept for the plastic closure of pelvic defects resulting from extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) or pelvic exenteration.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jackisch Julia, Jackisch Thomas, Roessler Joerg, Sims Anja, Nitzsche Holger, Mann Pia, Mees Sören Torge, Stelzner Sigmar
Аннотация
PURPOSE: No standard exists for reconstruction after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) and pelvic exenteration. We propose a tailored concept with the use of bilateral gluteal V-Y advancement flaps in non-extended ELAPE and with vertical myocutaneous rectus abdominis muscle (VRAM) flaps in extended procedures. This retrospective study analyzes the feasibility of this concept.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrieved all consecutive patients after ELAPE or pelvic exenteration for rectal, anal, or vulva cancer with flap repair from a prospective database. Perineal wound complications were defined as the primary endpoint. Outcomes for the two different flap reconstructions were analyzed.
RESULTS: From 2005 to 2021, we identified 107 patients who met the study criteria. Four patients underwent exenteration with VRAM flap repair after previous V-Y flap fashioning. Therefore, we report on 75 V-Y and 36 VRAM flaps. The V-Y group contained more rectal carcinomas, and the VRAM group exhibited more patients with recurrent cancer, more multivisceral resections, and longer operation times. Perineal wound complications occurred in 21.3% in the V-Y group and in 36.1% in the VRAM group (p = 0.097). Adjusted odds ratio for perineal wound complication was not significantly different for the two flap types.
CONCLUSION: Concerning perineal wound complications, our concept yields favorable results for V-Y flap closure indicating that this less invasive approach is sufficient for non-extended ELAPE. Advantages are a shorter operation time, less donor site morbidity, and the option of a second repair. VRAM flaps were reserved for larger wounds after pelvic exenteration or vaginal repair.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrieved all consecutive patients after ELAPE or pelvic exenteration for rectal, anal, or vulva cancer with flap repair from a prospective database. Perineal wound complications were defined as the primary endpoint. Outcomes for the two different flap reconstructions were analyzed.
RESULTS: From 2005 to 2021, we identified 107 patients who met the study criteria. Four patients underwent exenteration with VRAM flap repair after previous V-Y flap fashioning. Therefore, we report on 75 V-Y and 36 VRAM flaps. The V-Y group contained more rectal carcinomas, and the VRAM group exhibited more patients with recurrent cancer, more multivisceral resections, and longer operation times. Perineal wound complications occurred in 21.3% in the V-Y group and in 36.1% in the VRAM group (p = 0.097). Adjusted odds ratio for perineal wound complication was not significantly different for the two flap types.
CONCLUSION: Concerning perineal wound complications, our concept yields favorable results for V-Y flap closure indicating that this less invasive approach is sufficient for non-extended ELAPE. Advantages are a shorter operation time, less donor site morbidity, and the option of a second repair. VRAM flaps were reserved for larger wounds after pelvic exenteration or vaginal repair.