Literature DB >> 30797741

Surgical outcomes of VRAM versus gracilis flaps for the reconstruction of pelvic defects following oncologic resection.

Michael J Stein1, Aneesh Karir2, Maleka Ramji3, Murray Allen2, James Ralph Bain3, Ronen Avram3, Robin Boushey4, Rebecca Auer4, Mario Jarmuske5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Pelvic reconstruction following abdominoperineal resection or pelvic exenteration is associated with signification surgical site morbidity. Immediate pelvic reconstruction with a muscle flap is now the gold standard, associated with reduced perineal morbidity compared to primary closure alone.2,3 The purpose of the present study was to directly compare outcomes of VRAM and gracilis flap pelvic reconstruction following oncologic resection.
METHODS: A multicenter retrospective review was performed of 88 patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection or pelvic exenteration and immediate pelvic reconstruction, either with a VRAM (N = 61) or Gracilis flap (N = 27). Electronic medical records were analyzed for patient demographics, intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes. Mortality, minor complication rate, major complication rate and time to complete wound healing was compared between groups.
RESULTS: Overall, there was no significant difference in the minor complication rate (44% gracilis vs 48% VRAM, p = 0.8), major complication rate (19% gracilis vs 13% of VRAM, p = 0.53), 30-day mortality (0% VRAM vs 0% gracilis, p = 1.0) and median time to complete wound healing (68 days vs 67 days, p = 0.19) between the gracilis and VRAM groups. Muscle-only gracilis flaps had a significantly reduced healing time compared to musculocutaneous gracilis flaps (48 days vs 85 days, p = 0.007).
CONCLUSIONS: The workhorse flap in pelvic reconstruction remains the VRAM. While previous studies have alluded to the inferiority of thigh based flaps compared to the VRAM, we demonstrate here that pelvic reconstruction with the gracilis flap can be performed with comparable donor and recipient complication rates and similar time to complete wound healing as the VRAM.
Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Abdominoperineal resection; Gracilis flap; Pelvic exenteration; Pelvic reconstruction; Perineal reconstruction; VRAM flap

Year:  2019        PMID: 30797741     DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2018.12.044

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


  5 in total

Review 1.  Is Pregnancy Following a TRAM or DIEP Flap Safe? A Critical Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ao Fu; Chunjun Liu
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2021-04-23       Impact factor: 2.326

2.  Pelvic/Perineal Reconstruction: Time to Consider the Anterolateral Thigh Flap as a First-line Option?

Authors:  David Perrault; Cindy Kin; Derrick C Wan; Natalie Kirilcuk; Andrew Shelton; Arash Momeni
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2020-04-24

3.  Application of depithelized gracilis adipofascial flap for pelvic floor reconstruction after pelvic exenteration.

Authors:  Chen Zhang; Xin Yang; Hongsen Bi
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2022-08-06       Impact factor: 2.030

Review 4.  Surgical Outcomes of VRAM vs. Gracilis Flaps in Vulvo-Perineal Reconstruction Following Oncologic Resection: A Proportional Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Ebai A Eseme; Matteo Scampa; Juan A Viscardi; Myriam Ebai; Daniel F Kalbermatten; Carlo M Oranges
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-09-01       Impact factor: 6.575

5.  Fascia Lata Grafting Combined with Gluteal Flaps for Pelvic Floor Reconstruction after Oncologic Resection.

Authors:  Takanobu Mashiko; Tomoaki Eguchi; Maiko Kiyama; Shuichiro Matoba; Yutaka Hanaoka; Shigeo Toda; Hiroya Kuroyanagi
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2022-10-11
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.