Gynecologic oncology · 2015
Pedicle perforator flaps for vulvar reconstruction--new generation of less invasive vulvar reconstruction with favorable results.
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.
Huang Jung-Ju, Chang Nai-Jen, Chou Hung-Hsueh, Wu Chih-Wei, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Chen Hsin-Yu, Cheng Ming-Huei
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Vulvar reconstruction after cancer surgery remains challenging. Pedicle perforator flaps are believed to be a less invasive option with better cosmesis.
METHODS: A retrospective review identified 27 flaps in 16 patients who underwent vulvar reconstruction after cancer surgery using island pedicled perforator flaps. Their average age was 55.7±17.8 years (Range: 22-85). The average BMI was 23.5±4.0 (range: 18.8-28.5). Five of the 16 patients underwent unilateral vulvar reconstruction, and 11 of them underwent bilateral vulvar-perineal reconstructions. The perforator flaps included deep femoral (profunda) artery perforator (DFAP or PAP) flaps (n=11), medial circumflex femoral perforator (MCFAP) flaps (n=8), external pudendal artery perforator (EPAP) flaps (n=2), medial thigh free style perforator flaps (n=2), and internal pudendal artery perforator flaps (n=4).
RESULTS: All flaps survived with a 100% success rate. Three patients developed small wounds that required debridement and closure after the reconstruction. All donor sites were closed primarily. One patient developed temporary peroneal nerve palsy. During follow-up, none of the patients presented with donor site morbidities. All of the patients were satisfied with the cosmetic and functional results, except that one patient underwent a flap debulking procedure three months after surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to traditional myocutaneous flaps, perforator flaps provide thinner fasciocutaneous flaps for vulvar reconstruction with favorable reconstruction results and fewer donor site morbidities. The medial or inner thigh is a region that is rich in perforators, which allow for more versatile flap design according to the defect. Furthermore, most of the donor site can be closed primarily without complications.
METHODS: A retrospective review identified 27 flaps in 16 patients who underwent vulvar reconstruction after cancer surgery using island pedicled perforator flaps. Their average age was 55.7±17.8 years (Range: 22-85). The average BMI was 23.5±4.0 (range: 18.8-28.5). Five of the 16 patients underwent unilateral vulvar reconstruction, and 11 of them underwent bilateral vulvar-perineal reconstructions. The perforator flaps included deep femoral (profunda) artery perforator (DFAP or PAP) flaps (n=11), medial circumflex femoral perforator (MCFAP) flaps (n=8), external pudendal artery perforator (EPAP) flaps (n=2), medial thigh free style perforator flaps (n=2), and internal pudendal artery perforator flaps (n=4).
RESULTS: All flaps survived with a 100% success rate. Three patients developed small wounds that required debridement and closure after the reconstruction. All donor sites were closed primarily. One patient developed temporary peroneal nerve palsy. During follow-up, none of the patients presented with donor site morbidities. All of the patients were satisfied with the cosmetic and functional results, except that one patient underwent a flap debulking procedure three months after surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to traditional myocutaneous flaps, perforator flaps provide thinner fasciocutaneous flaps for vulvar reconstruction with favorable reconstruction results and fewer donor site morbidities. The medial or inner thigh is a region that is rich in perforators, which allow for more versatile flap design according to the defect. Furthermore, most of the donor site can be closed primarily without complications.