Literature DB >> 22231559

Perineal reconstruction after abdominoperineal excision using inferior gluteal artery perforator flaps.

A Hainsworth1, M Al Akash, P Roblin, P Mohanna, D Ross, M L George.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Perineal wound complications following abdominoperineal excision (APE) for low rectal tumours remain an important cause of morbidity and prolonged hospital stay, particularly after chemoradiotherapy. The aim was to assess outcomes after using inferior gluteal artery perforator (IGAP) flaps for immediate perineal reconstruction, and to compare these with the authors' previous experience and published literature on myocutaneous flaps.
METHODS: A series of patients who underwent immediate IGAP flap reconstruction after APE between April 2008 and December 2010 were examined retrospectively to determine patient demographics, length of operation, complications (perineal wound and general) and length of hospital stay.
RESULTS: Forty patients with rectal adenocarcinoma (33 primary and 7 recurrent disease) underwent immediate IGAP flap reconstruction following APE. Median follow-up was 9 months. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was received by 98 per cent of the patients. Thirty-two patients underwent APE plus IGAP flaps (25 open, 7 laparoscopic), with a median operating time of 402 min, and eight patients had multivisceral resection (MVR) plus IGAP flaps (7 total pelvic exenteration (TPE), 1 abdominosacral resection), with a median duration of surgery of 561 min. There was one death (fatal stroke) and four major flap complications (10 per cent) (1 enteroperineal fistula, and 3 deep wound infections). Median length of hospital stay was 13 days after APE plus IGAP flaps and 27 days following MVR plus IGAP flaps. Late complications occurred in two patients who had vaginal reconstruction and developed perineal hernias requiring revisional surgery.
CONCLUSION: Although operating times are long, the IGAP flap is robust, with no flap necrosis observed in this series.
Copyright © 2012 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22231559     DOI: 10.1002/bjs.7822

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Surg        ISSN: 0007-1323            Impact factor:   6.939


  7 in total

1.  Outcomes after biological mesh reconstruction of the pelvic floor following extra-levator abdominoperineal excision of rectum (APER).

Authors:  O Peacock; J A Simpson; S I Tou; N G Hurst; W J Speake; G M Tierney; J N Lund
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2014-01-17       Impact factor: 3.781

Review 2.  Management of the Perineal Defect after Abdominoperineal Excision.

Authors:  Colin Peirce; Sean Martin
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2016-06

Review 3.  Surgical options for locally recurrent rectal cancer--review and update.

Authors:  A Troja; N El-Sourani; A Abdou; D Antolovic; H R Raab
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2015-05-20       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Transperineal retropubic approach in total pelvic exenteration for advanced and recurrent colorectal and anal cancer involving the penile base: technique and outcomes.

Authors:  A M Mehta; G Hellawell; D Burling; S Littler; A Antoniou; J T Jenkins
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2018-10-10       Impact factor: 3.781

5.  Analysis of clinical and patient-reported outcomes in post-ELAPE perineal reconstruction with IGAP flap - A 5-year review.

Authors:  Ashwin Alke Pai; Quillan Young-Sing; Sudipta Bera; Kavish Maheshwari; Alok Misra
Journal:  JPRAS Open       Date:  2022-06-23

6.  A National Survey on Perineal Reconstruction Following Standard and Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision: Current Practices and Trends in the UK.

Authors:  Rushabh Shah; Rituja Kamble; Mohammed Herieka; Milind Dalal
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-08-24

Review 7.  Human papilloma virus and squamous cell carcinoma of the anus.

Authors:  Bhavna Gami; Faris Kubba; Paul Ziprin
Journal:  Clin Med Insights Oncol       Date:  2014-09-17
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.