| Literature DB >> 23701700 |
Yao Weitao1, Cai Qiqing, Gao Songtao, Wang Jiaqiang.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While performing sacrectomy from a posterior approach enables the en bloc resection of sacral tumors, it can result in deep posterior peritoneal defects and postoperative complications. We investigated whether defect reconstruction with gluteus maximus (GLM) adipomuscular sliding flaps would improve patient outcomes.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23701700 PMCID: PMC3664623 DOI: 10.1186/1477-7819-11-110
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Surg Oncol ISSN: 1477-7819 Impact factor: 2.754
Figure 1Reconstruction of the sacral defect caused by tumor resection with bilateral gluteus maximus (GLM) adipomuscular sliding flaps. A huge defect is left after sacral tumor resection (a). Separation of the GLM adipomuscular flap on one side (b). Separation of another side of the GLM adipomuscular flap (c). The defect is eliminated by advancement of the bilateral GLM adipomuscular flaps (d).
Figure 2Magnetic resonance imaging of the tumor and flap. Sacral tumor and intact gluteus maximus (GLM) (arrow) before surgery (a). Well-maintained GLM adipomuscular flap (arrow) behind the rectum (b) 6 months after surgery.
Characteristics of patients grouped by closure method
| Gender | |||
| Male | 13 (61.90%) | 19 (70.37%) | 0.85 |
| Female | 8 (38.10%) | 8 (29.63%) | |
| Age, years | |||
| 20 to 40 | 3 (14.29%) | 5 (18.52%) | 0.06 |
| 40 to 60 | 11 (52.38%) | 16 (59.26%) | |
| 60 to 80 | 7 (33.33%) | 6 (22.22%) | |
| Segment of sacrum | |||
| S4 to S5 | 1 (4.76%) | 1 (3.70%) | 0.06 |
| S4 to S3 | 2 (9.82%) | 4 (14.81%) | |
| S2 to S3 | 6 (28.57%) | 7 (25.93%) | |
| S1 to S2 | 7 (33.33%) | 10 (37.04%) | |
| L5 to S1 | 5 (23.81%) | 5 (18.52%) | |
| Pathology | |||
| Chordomas | 12 (57.14%) | 14 (51.85%) | 0.05 |
| Multiple myelomas | 2 (9.52%) | 3 (11.11%) | |
| Metastatic tumors | 2 (9.52%) | 5 (18.52%) | |
| Giant-cell tumor | 4 (19.05%) | 3 (11.11%) | |
| Others | 1 (4.67%) | 1 (3.70%) | |
| Size of tumor, diameter | |||
| <10 cm | 11 (52.38%) | 6 (22.22%) | 0.11 |
| 10 to 20 cm | 7 (33.33%) | 14 (51.85%) | |
| >20 cm | 3 (14.29%) | 7 (25.93%) | |
| Resection methods | |||
| Radical resection | 10 (47.62%) | 14 (51.85%) | 0.02 |
| Marginal resection | 6 (28.57%) | 9 (33.33%) | |
| Intradural curettage | 5 (23.81%) | 4 (14.81%) | |
| Fixation | |||
| Yes | 10 (47.62%) | 14 (51.85%) | 0.84 |
| No | 11 (52.38%) | 13 (48.15%) | |
Data are number (%).
Surgical outcomes according to treatment group
| Time to last drainage, days | 28.41 ± 11.05 | 16.82 ± 7.38 | 0.02 |
| Amount of fluid drained, mL | 2370 ± 284 | 1733 ± 326 | 0.00 |
| Wound infection | 8 (38.10%) | 4 (14.81%) | 0.00 |
| Wound margin necrosis | 2 (9.82%) | 3 (11.11%) | 0.00 |
| Wound dehiscence | 4 (19.05%) | 3 (11.11%) | 0.00 |
Data are mean ± SD or number (%).