Outcome of vulvar reconstruction by anterolateral thigh flap in patients with advanced and recurrent vulvar malignancy

Perforator versus Non-Perforator Flap-Based Vulvoperineal Reconstruction-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced vulvoperineal cancer require a multidisciplinary treatment approach to ensure oncological safety, timely recovery, and the highest possible quality of life (QoL). Reconstructions in this region often lead to complications, affecting approximately 30% of patients. Flap design has evolved towards perforator-based approaches to reduce functional deficits and (donor site) complications, since they allow for the preservation of relevant anatomical structures. Next to their greater surgical challenge in elevation, their superiority over non-perforator-based approaches is still debated.

METHODS

To compare outcomes between perforator and non-perforator flaps in female vulvoperineal reconstruction, we conducted a systematic review of English-language studies published after 1980, including randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case series. Data on demographics and surgical outcomes were extracted and classified using the Clavien-Dindo classification. We used a random-effects meta-analysis to derive a pooled estimate of complication frequency (%) in patients who received at least one perforator flap and in patients who received non-perforator flaps.

RESULTS

Among 2576 screened studies, 49 met our inclusion criteria, encompassing 1840 patients. The overall short-term surgical complication rate was comparable in patients receiving a perforator (n = 276) or a non-perforator flap (n = 1564) reconstruction (p* > 0.05). There was a tendency towards fewer complications when using perforator flaps. The assessment of patients' QoL was scarce.

CONCLUSIONS

Vulvoperineal reconstruction using perforator flaps shows promising results compared with non-perforator flaps. There is a need for the assessment of its long-term outcomes and for a systematic evaluation of patient QoL to further demonstrate its benefit for affected patients.

Reconstructive Surgery versus Primary Closure following Vulvar Cancer Excision: A Wide Single-Center Experience

Simple Summary

When it comes to advanced vulval cancer management, there is a critical quandary to consider. This is owing to the severe negative impact of demolitive surgery on women who are afflicted by both functional and psychological consequences of the procedure. Primary closure of vulvar and/or perineal defects can be accomplished without difficulty in many situations, but this is accompanied by tension of the skin closure and distortion of the anatomy. In these circumstances, reconstructive surgery will be required to restore the anatomical and functional characteristics of the vulva. In this paper, we share our substantial expertise of primary closure versus reconstruction after demolitive surgery of advanced vulvar cancer, and we discuss our findings in light of the literature.

Abstract

(1) Background: plastic reconstruction in vulvar surgery can lead to a better treatment outcome than primary closure. This study aims to compare the preoperative parameters (co-morbidities and tumor size) and postoperative results (tumor free margins and wound healing) between the primary closure and reconstructive surgery after vulvar cancer surgery; (2) Methods: this is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from 2009 to 2021 at a tertiary cancer institution; (3) Results: 177 patients were included in the final analysis (51 patients had primary closure PC and 126 had reconstructive surgery RS). About half (49%) of the PC patients had no co-morbidities (p = 0.043). The RS group had a 45 mm median maximal tumor diameter compared to the PC group’s 23 mm (p = 0.013). More than 90% of RS and 80% of PC had tumor-free margins (p = 0.1). Both groups had anterior vulvar excision as the most common surgery (52.4% RS vs. 23.5% PC; p = 0.001). Both groups had identical rates of wound healing disorders. In a median follow-up of 39 months; recurrent disease was found in 23.5% of PC vs. 10.3% in RS (p = 0.012). In terms of overall survival there was no significant difference between the both groups; (4) Conclusions: reconstructive vulvar surgery enables enhanced complete resection rates of larger vulvar tumors with better anatomical restoration and a comparable wound recovery in comparison to primary closure. This results in a lower recurrence rate despite the increased tumor volume.

Redefining the Reconstructive Ladder in Vulvoperineal Reconstruction: The Role of Pedicled Perforator Flaps

BACKGROUND

 Gynecological reconstruction is difficult, particularly in cases with recurrence and received previous surgeries and/or radiotherapy and necessitate secondary reconstruction. Perforator flaps can preserve other donor sites for potential later reconstruction, and they also can be better tailored to the defect. We hypothesized that the use of perforator-based flaps can better restore the defect with less complications.

METHODS

 A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who underwent vulvar-perineum reconstruction between 2011 and 2018 by the senior author, and oncologic and reconstructive outcomes and complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

 Thirty-three patients underwent 55 soft tissue reconstructions for vulvar-perineum defects during the study period. The mean follow-up time was 27.6 ± 28.9 months. Squamous cell carcinoma was the most common cancer (45.5%). For 11 patients (33.3%), the procedures were performed for the treatment of recurrent cancer. The average defect size was 39.8 ± 34.3 cm². The overall survival rate was 90.3%. Profunda artery perforator flaps were the most commonly applied flap for reconstruction in both the primary and recurrent groups. Poor wound healing was the most common complication which occurred in 10 of the 55 flaps (18.2%). Perforator flaps presented fewer complications than myocutaneous flaps or traditional random flaps. Similarly, Island pedicle flap design also presented fewer complications than traditional rotation flaps. With proper reconstruction, previous surgery or radiotherapy did not contribute to an increase in complications.

CONCLUSION

 In our experience, perforator flaps can provide satisfactory reconstruction for perineum reconstruction with low postoperative complications while preserving other donor sites in the event of disease recurrence for repeat resection and reconstruction. Previous surgery or radiotherapy did not increase the complications or preclude its usage. A redefined reconstructive ladder was created to help selecting the best state-of-the-art technique for reconstruction to achieve better results.

Maximizing the Utility of the Pedicled Anterolateral Thigh Flap for Locoregional Reconstruction: Technical Pearls and Pitfalls

The pedicled anterolateral thigh (PALT) flap is an underutilized flap for locoregional reconstruction largely because methods to maximize its reach are neither universally implemented nor fully understood. In addition, most of the available literature has focused on the utility of the free anterolateral thigh flap with less emphasis on the PALT flap. Moreover, flap design concepts to maximize its utility and reach and optimize outcomes have not been comprehensively described. In an effort to address this knowledge gap, the authors sought to review their institution's experience with the PALT flap for locoregional reconstruction.

Experience with gluteal V-Y fasciocutaneous advancement flaps in vulvar reconstruction after oncological resection and a modification to the marking: Playing with tension lines

Many post-vulvectomy vulvar reconstruction solutions, using local fasciocutaneous flaps where possible, have been proposed. We report the use of V-Y advancement flaps from the gluteal fold in medium to large vulvar reconstructions and a simple modification we made to the technique in order to minimise wound-related complications. Between 2006 and 2016, 30 vulvar reconstructions were performed via a total of 59 flaps, 24 of which were raised using the proposed modification to the plasty design. Short- and long-term (24 months) follow-up data were analysed, postoperative flap sensitivity was tested, and any arising complications were recorded. The mean age of patients treated was 75.3 years (51-92 years). The mean monolateral defect dimensions were 7.5 × 4.7 × 2.8 cm. Minor complications were recorded in 23% of patients (14% of flaps). One case of ostial stenosis occurred. Micturition and ambulation recovery was rapid, and flap sensitivity was fully restored 24 months after reconstruction. Scars were well hidden by natural soft tissue folds. The outcomes in this case series confirm that the gluteal V-Y advancement fasciocutaneous flap is a useful and simple technique for reconstructing even large vulvar defects. It has a low functional and aesthetic impact and enables rapid return to autonomy. Moreover, the simple modification to the V-Y flap proposed, designed to reduce tension at the apical part of the wound, appears to reduce the complication rate.

Maximizing the Utility of the Pedicled Anterolateral Thigh Flap for Locoregional Reconstruction: Technical Pearls and Pitfalls

The pedicled anterolateral thigh (PALT) flap is an underutilized flap for locoregional reconstruction largely because methods to maximize its reach are neither universally implemented nor fully understood. In addition, most of the available literature has focused on the utility of the free anterolateral thigh flap with less emphasis on the PALT flap. Moreover, flap design concepts to maximize its utility and reach and optimize outcomes have not been comprehensively described. In an effort to address this knowledge gap, the authors sought to review their institution's experience with the PALT flap for locoregional reconstruction.