Literature DB >> 24907194

Reconstruction following partial and total sacrectomy defects: an analysis of outcomes and complications.

Marco Maricevich1, Renata Maricevich1, Harvey Chim1, Steven L Moran1, Peter S Rose2, Samir Mardini3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Reconstruction of sacrectomy defects following ablative surgery remains a challenge, with high complication rates in the reported literature. The size of the defect is the primary consideration for flap choice; however, the cause of intra-abdominal and flap complications remains unclear. The aim of the study was to evaluate our results for sacrectomy flap reconstruction in order to determine predictive or protecting factors for complications.
METHODS: A 13-year retrospective review was performed of all patients who had reconstruction for partial and total sacrectomy defects at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN, USA. Demographics, flap choice, and complications were analyzed. Multivariate analysis was used to determine factors causing flap and intra-abdominal complications.
RESULTS: Fifty-four patients underwent reconstruction. Partial sacrectomy was performed in 38 (70.4%) patients, while total sacrectomy was performed in 16 (29.6%) patients. The average wound defect volume was 2136 cm(3) (range 196-13,980 cm(3)). Flaps used included gluteal (n = 15; 27.8%), rectus abdominis myocutaneous (RAM) (n = 37; 68.5%), and combined gluteal/RAM (n = 2; 3.7%). Obesity was significantly associated with intra-abdominal complications (p < 0.05) while preoperative radiotherapy and chemotherapy were not. Flap and wound healing complications were not significantly associated with any factors.
CONCLUSIONS: Gluteal advancement and vertical RAM or transverse RAM flaps are both reliable options for reconstruction of sacrectomy defects. The use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) for reconstructing the posterior abdominal wall provides a barrier between the intra-abdominal contents and flap, preventing bowel adhesions/obstruction and fistulas as well as prevents sacroperineal hernia.
Copyright © 2014 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Acellular dermal matrix; Flap; Reconstruction; Rectus abdominis; Sacrectomy

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24907194     DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2014.05.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg        ISSN: 1748-6815            Impact factor:   2.740


  5 in total

Review 1.  Health-Related Quality of Life After Spine Surgery for Primary Bone Tumour.

Authors:  Raphaële Charest-Morin; Nicolas Dea; Charles G Fisher
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2016-02

Review 2.  [Treatment concepts for complications after resection and defect reconstruction of pelvic tumours].

Authors:  J Hardes; W Guder; A Streitbürger; L Podleska; P Rödder; G Täger; M Dudda; M Nottrott
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  Complex Reconstruction of a Pelvic Marjolin's Ulcer Arising from Hidradenitis Suppurativa.

Authors:  Lauren E Buchanan; Chris A Campbell
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2019-05-31

4.  Risk Factors Associated with Reconstructive Complications Following Sacrectomy.

Authors:  Emma D Vartanian; Jeremy V Lynn; David P Perrault; Erik M Wolfswinkel; Andreas M Kaiser; Ketan M Patel; Joseph N Carey; Patrick C Hsieh; Alex K Wong
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2018-11-05

5.  Sacrum morphometry and spinopelvic parameters among the Indonesian population using computed tomography scans.

Authors:  Arsanto Triwidodo; Ahmad Jabir Rahyussalim; Nyimas Diana Yulisa; Jacub Pandelaki; Lina Saleh Huraiby; Ivana Ariella Nita Hadi; Faza Yuspa Liosha; Ismail Hadisoebroto Dilogo
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-11-24       Impact factor: 1.817

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.