Lotus petal flap and vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap in vulvoperineal reconstruction: a systematic review of differences in complications

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.

Lotus petal flap reconstruction of labia major and perineum after necrotizing fasciitis infection: A case report

Necrotizing fasciitis is one of the most serious and deadly infections in surgery. The tissue defects that result after a severe infection with necrotizing fasciitis are often not easy to resolve surgically. The importance of this article is to show the reconstructive efficacy of the lotus petal flap based on two perforators. We present a 71-year-old female case with necrotizing fasciitis infection and defect of the region of the vulva (labia major) and perineum. We solved the reconstruction of the defect of the lower half of the labia major and the perineum, on the left side, by raising a fascio-cutaneous lotus petal flap along the gluteal fold, based on two perforators. Considering that the necrotizing fasciitis infection is very serious, it is also accompanied by large soft tissue defects. Raising the flap based on two perforators gives it greater vascular security and, at the same time, greater success in survival. We can conclude that the reconstruction of defects of the vulva and perineum with a lotus petal flap is a satisfactory solution and acceptable to the patient.

Reconstruction of Acquired Defects of the External Genitalia: A 24-Patient, Single-Institution Experience

PURPOSE

Patients undergoing resection of the external genitalia are often faced with significant deformity and decreased quality of life. Plastic surgeons are tasked with the challenge of reconstructing these defects to minimize morbidity and increase patients' quality of life. The authors have set out to investigate the efficacy of local fasciocutaneous and pedicled perforator flaps in external genital reconstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of all patients undergoing reconstruction of acquired defects of the external genitalia from 2017 to 2021. In total, 24 patients met inclusion criteria for the study. Patients were allocated into 2 cohorts: patients with defects reconstructed using local fasciocutaneous flaps (FF) versus patients with defects reconstructed using pedicled islandized perforator flaps (PF). Comorbid conditions, ablative procedures, operative times, flap size, and complications were compared across all groups. Fisher exact test was used to analyze differences in comorbidities, while independent t tests were used to analyze age, body mass index, operative time, and flap size. Significance was set at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

Of the 24 patients included in the study, 6 underwent reconstruction with islandized PFs (either profunda artery perforator or anterolateral thigh), and 18 underwent reconstruction with FFs. The most common indication for reconstruction was vulvectomy for vulvar cancer, followed by radical debridement for infection, and lastly penectomy for penile cancer. The PF cohort had a significantly higher percentage of previously irradiated patients (50% vs 11.1%, P = 0.019). Although mean flap size was larger in the PF cohort, this difference did not reach statistical significance (176 vs 143.4 cm2, P = 0.5). Perforator flaps had significantly longer operative times when compared with FFs (237.33 vs 128.99 minutes, P = 0.003). Average length of stay was 6.88 days in FF and 5.33 days in PF (P = 0.624). Complication profile including flap necrosis, wound healing delays, and infection were similar between groups despite a significantly higher rate of prior radiation in the PF cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that PFs such as profunda artery perforator and anterolateral thigh flaps are associated with longer operative times but may offer a suitable option for reconstruction of acquired defects of the external genital compared with local FFs, especially in the setting of prior radiation.