Profunda artery perforator based V-Y rotation advancement flap for total vulvectomy defect reconstruction-A case report and literature review

Pelvic and Perineal Reconstruction

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Classify types of bony pelvic resections. 2. Outline reconstructive options for pelvic and perineal defects. 3. Identify advantages and drawbacks of various reconstructive techniques. 4. Recognize the functional benefits of bony and soft-tissue reconstruction.

SUMMARY

Defects of the pelvis and perineum arise from tumors, trauma, infection, congenital differences, and gender incongruence. Pelvic resections can result in bony instability and soft-tissue deficiency. The goals of reconstruction are maintenance of spinopelvic continuity, elimination of dead space, resurfacing of cutaneous defects, and prevention of hernias. Perineal reconstruction has important functional considerations. Abdominoperineal resection and pelvic exenteration defects benefit from flap reconstruction to decrease pelvic wound complications. Vulvovaginal reconstruction is performed with flaps from the perineum, thigh, or abdomen. Scrotal and superficial penile defects are most commonly reconstructed with scrotal flaps and skin grafts. Total penile reconstruction most commonly uses a radial forearm free flap.

The Vertical Profunda Artery Perforator Flap for Perineal Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is a significant cause of cancer-related death in the United States with abdominoperineal resection (APR) remaining a necessary procedure for many patients. The resultant defects of this radical operation are complex and characterized by significant tissue voids. Pedicled vertical profunda artery perforator flaps (vPAP) can be used to obliterate these defects in patients receiving minimally invasive APR or when the abdominal donor site is unavailable.

METHODS

After receiving local institutional review board approval, a single center, retrospective cohort study from January 2020 to December 2021 was performed assessing pedicled vPAP flap reconstruction of APR defects. Age, sex, body mass index, primary diagnosis, comorbidities, concomitant oncologic procedures, radiation, timing, incorporation of gracilis flaps, follow-up, and complications were compared.

RESULTS

Ten patients (70% male) with an average age of 56.2 years and BMI of 27.6 were included in the study. Rectal adenocarcinoma (50%) was the most common indication for APR, followed by rectal squamous cell carcinoma (30%), vulvar squamous cell carcinoma (10%), and Crohn disease (10%). Eighty percent of the patients received radiation, and 70% of reconstructions were delayed after the initial resection. The average length of clinical follow-up was 26.1 months. Concerning major complications, 2 patients were required to return to the operating room due to venous congestion (20%), and 2 patients suffered partial flap failure (20%). Minor complications were perineal dehiscence (50%), abscess requiring percutaneous drainage by interventional radiology (30%), and infection requiring antibiotics (20%). Twenty percent of patients developed fistulas requiring surgical excision. There were no instances of donor site dehiscence, and there was no complete flap loss, indicating successful reconstruction in all included cases.

CONCLUSIONS

vPAP flaps are a reliable method to reconstruct perineal defects with less donor-site morbidity than previous reconstructive options. vPAP flaps should be considered in the setting of delayed reconstruction, minimally invasive APRs, and when the abdominal donor site is unavailable.

The combined use of pedicled profunda artery perforator and bilateral gracilis flaps for pelvic reconstruction: A cohort study

The result of an extra-levator abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (ELAPE) is a composite three-dimensional defect. This is performed for locally advanced anorectal cancer, and may involve partial excision of the vagina. The aim of reconstruction is to achieve wound healing, restore the pelvic floor and to allow micturition and sexual function. We aim to evaluate the concurrent use of profunda artery perforator (PAP) and bilateral gracilis flaps for vaginal and pelvic floor reconstruction. We performed a retrospective case note review of patients undergoing pelvo-perineal reconstruction with combined gracilis and PAP flaps between July 2018 and December 2019. Eighteen pedicled flaps were performed on six patients with anal or vulval malignancies. All underwent pre-operative radiotherapy. Four patients had extended abdominoperineal tumour resections, while two patients underwent total pelvic exenteration. The median age was 57 (range 47-74) years, inpatient stay was 22 (11-47) days and the follow-up was 10 (5-21) months. Four patients developed partial perineal wound dehiscence, of which one was re-sutured. One patient had a post-operative bleed requiring radiological embolisation of an internal iliac branch and had subsequent 1cm PAP flap loss. All other flaps survived completely. Median time to heal was 4 (1-6) months. This is the first series reporting combined bilateral gracilis and PAP flaps for pelvic reconstruction. The wound dehiscence rate and healing times were expected in the context of irradiation and radical pelvic tumour resection. This is a reliable technique for perineal and vaginal reconstruction with minimal donor site morbidity.

Propeller posteromedial thigh perforator flaps for coverage of extensive perineal defects

BACKGROUND

Reconstruction of perineal defect is challenging. The goal of reconstruction is to maintain normal function with good esthetic outcomes. Coverage of the perineal defect is often difficult with one loco-regional flap when the size of defect is very extensive. In this article, clinical applications of the propeller posteromedial thigh perforator (PMTP) flap for extensive perineal defects were described.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eight patients underwent perineal reconstruction with propeller PMTP flaps from March 2013 to December 2018. The average age of the patients was 65 years (range: 52-80 years). The causes of the defects included infection and skin cancers. The perforator was a branch of deep femoral artery. The flap was harvested as a perforator-based flap and rotated 180° to the defect area (propeller flap design).

RESULTS

The average flap size was 256.5 cm² (range: 136-400 cm² ) and average follow-up period was 22.4 months (range: 6-48 months). All flaps survived after surgery without major complications. The donor sites were all primarily closed and the patients were all satisfied during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

The propeller PMTP flap is an adequate new option for reconstructing extensive perineal defects. The flap avoids the need for microanastomosis and replaces the defect with similar tissue.

Reconstruction of a radical total vulvectomy defect with a single split anterolateral thigh perforator flap: A case report and review of the literature

Reconstruction following total vulvectomy is a reconstructive challenge. Previously described techniques typically require bilateral flaps and the associated donor site morbidity. We present a case of reconstruction after radical total vulvectomy using a single split anterolateral thigh (ALT) perforator flap with a design that optimizes perfusion while allowing for primary donor site closure. A 68-year-old female with a history of vulvar squamous cell carcinoma who had previously undergone vulvectomy and radiation therapy presented with local recurrence. The patient required a radical total vulvectomy, resulting in a 12 × 10 cm vulvar defect. A 2-perforator ALT flap (25 × 7 cm) was harvested, split transversely, and then inset in a circumferential manner around the vulva. This approach contrasts with previous reports, which split the ALT flap longitudinally or centrally, and can compromise perfusion and/or preclude primary donor site closure. The patient healed without complication with 6 months of follow-up. The described approach allows for total vulvectomy reconstruction using a single ALT flap with a perforator configuration that maximizes perfusion while obviating the need for donor site grafting.

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.