Vulvar Reconstruction by Perforator Flaps: Algorithm for Flap Choice Based on the Topography of the Defect

The Toulouse algorithm: vulvar cancer location-based reconstruction

Vulvar cancer is a rare malignancy, accounting for approximately 5% of all gynecological cancers, but its incidence has increased. The gold standard treatment is complete surgical resection with safety margins, which may vary according to histological subtype. This surgery often results in large defects, which may be challenging to repair international guidelines recommend that reconstructive procedures after vulvar cancer surgery should always be considered in cases where it will guarantee better functional and/or cosmetic results or when wound closure will be challenging. With the advancements of reconstructive procedures in oncologic surgery, perforator flaps represent the best option to reduce donor-site complications, and have all the advantages for vulvar reconstruction, by less demolitive procedures to maintain the patient's self-image and sexual function without impacting the oncological outcome. Various algorithms have been proposed in the literature for flap selection in vulvo-perineal reconstructive surgery (Gentileschi S, Servillo M, Garganese G, et al. Surgical therapy of vulvar cancer: how to choose the correct reconstruction? J Gynecol Oncol. 2016;27(6):e60. doi:10.3802/jgo.2016.27.e60; Negosanti L, Sgarzani R, Fabbri E, et al. Vulvar reconstruction by perforator flaps: algorithm for flap choice based on the topography of the defect. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25(7):1322-1327. doi:10.1097/IGC.0000000000000481; Salgarello M, Farallo E, Barone-Adesi L, et al. Flap algorithm in vulvar reconstruction after radical, extensive vulvectomy. Ann Plast Surg. 2005;54(2):184-190. doi:10.1097/01.sap.0000141381.77762.07; Höckel M, Dornhöfer N. Vulvovaginal reconstruction for neoplastic disease. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9(6):559-568. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(0870147-5)). However, these often lack practicality as they are based on the size of the defect, listing all possible flaps that can be adopted without considering that some flaps should clearly be preferred because of their better aesthetic result. Moreover, most of these algorithms still recommend musculocutaneous flaps which are associated with greater donor-site morbidity, and which should therefore be considered only in selected cases when other flaps are not feasible. We present a simple and effective algorithm for flap selection in the field of vulvo-vaginal-perineal reconstruction for vulvar carcinomas, developed from our experience as a tertiary referral cancer center. This algorithm is based on the anatomical involvement of the vulvo-perineal region to provide more accurate anatomical restoration. It is versatile enough to be used in most cases of vulvo-vagino-perineal reconstructive surgery, leading to an improvement in the restoration of anatomy and function. Moreover, perforator flaps are proposed as the first option with different possibilities based on the location and the size of the defect.

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.

Secondary post-oncologic vulvar reconstruction - a simplified algorithm

Introduction

Surgical treatment is the gold standard of care for vulvar cancer and is burdened by a high risk of wound complications due to the poor healing typical of the female genital area. Moreover, this malignancy has a high risk of local relapse even after wide excision. For these reasons, secondary reconstruction of the vulvoperineal area is a relevant and challenging scenario for gynecologists and plastic surgeons. The presence of tissue already operated on and undermined, scars, incisions, the possibility of previous radiation therapy, contamination of urinary and fecal pathogens in the dehiscent wound or ulcerated tumor, and the unavailability of some flaps employed during the primary procedure are typical complexities of this surgery. Due to the rarity of this tumor, a rational approach to secondary reconstruction has never been proposed in the literature.

Methods

In this observational retrospective study, we reviewed the clinical data of patients affected by vulvar cancer who underwent secondary reconstruction of the vulvoperineal area in our hospital between 2013 and 2023. Oncological, reconstructive, demographic, and complication data were recorded. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of wound complications. The secondary outcome measure was the indication of the different flaps, according to the defect, to establish an algorithm for decision-making.

Results

Sixty-six patients were included; mean age was 71.3 ± 9.4 years, and the mean BMI was 25.1 ± 4.9. The mean size of the defect repaired by secondary vulvar reconstruction was 178 cm² ± 163 cm². Vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM), anterolateral thigh (ALT), fasciocutaneous V-Y (VY), and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) were the flaps more frequently employed. We observed five cases of wound breakdown, one case of marginal necrosis of an ALT flap, and three cases of wound infection. The algorithm we developed considered the geometry and size of the defect and the flaps still available after previous surgery.

Discussion

A systematic approach to secondary vulvar reconstruction can provide good surgical results with a low rate of complications. The geometry of the defect and the use of both traditional and perforator flaps should guide the choice of the reconstructive technique.

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD), the European College for the Study of Vulval Disease (ECSVD) and the European Federation for Colposcopy (EFC) consensus statements on pre-invasive vulvar lesions

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD), the European College for the Study of Vulval Disease (ECSVD), and the European Federation for Colposcopy (EFC) developed consensus statements on pre-invasive vulvar lesions in order to improve the quality of care for patients with vulvar squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, vulvar Paget disease in situ, and melanoma in situ. For differentiated vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (dVIN), an excisional procedure must always be adopted. For vulvar high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (VHSIL), both excisional procedures and ablative ones can be used. The latter can be considered for anatomy and function preservation and must be preceded by several representative biopsies to exclude malignancy. Medical treatment (imiquimod or cidofovir) can be considered for VHSIL. Recent studies favor an approach of using imiquimod in vulvar Paget's disease. Surgery must take into consideration that the extension of the disease is usually wider than what is evident in the skin. A 2 cm margin is usually considered necessary. A wide local excision with 1 cm free surgical margins is recommended for melanoma in situ. Following treatment of pre-invasive vulvar lesions, women should be seen on a regular basis for careful clinical assessment, including biopsy of any suspicious area. Follow-up should be modulated according to the risk of recurrence (type of lesion, patient age and immunological conditions, other associated lower genital tract lesions).

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD), the European College for the Study of Vulval Disease (ECSVD) and the European Federation for Colposcopy (EFC) Consensus Statements on Pre-invasive Vulvar Lesions

ABSTRACT

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD), the European College for the Study of Vulval Disease (ECSVD), and the European Federation for Colposcopy (EFC) developed consensus statements on pre-invasive vulvar lesions in order to improve the quality of care for patients with vulvar squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, vulvar Paget disease in situ, and melanoma in situ. For differentiated vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (dVIN), an excisional procedure must always be adopted. For vulvar high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (VHSIL), both excisional procedures and ablative ones can be used. The latter can be considered for anatomy and function preservation and must be preceded by several representative biopsies to exclude malignancy. Medical treatment (imiquimod or cidofovir) can be considered for VHSIL. Recent studies favor an approach of using imiquimod in vulvar Paget's disease. Surgery must take into consideration that the extension of the disease is usually wider than what is evident in the skin. A 2 cm margin is usually considered necessary. A wide local excision with 1 cm free surgical margins is recommended for melanoma in situ. Following treatment of pre-invasive vulvar lesions, women should be seen on a regular basis for careful clinical assessment, including biopsy of any suspicious area. Follow-up should be modulated according to the risk of recurrence (type of lesion, patient age and immunological conditions, other associated lower genital tract lesions).

Gender-specific Anatomical Distribution of Internal Pudendal Artery Perforator: A Radiographic Study for Perineal Reconstruction

Cancer, trauma, infection, or radiation can cause perineal defects. Fasciocutaneous flaps based on perforator vessels (PV) from the internal pudendal artery (IPA) provide an ideal reconstructive option for moderate defects. We hypothesized that, due to gender differences in the pelvic–perineal region, the anatomical distribution of PV differs between genders.

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

BACKGROUND

Vulvoperineal defects resulting from surgical treatment of (pre)malignancies may result in reconstructive challenges. The vertical rectus abdominis muscle flap and, more recently, the fasciocutaneous lotus petal flap are often used for reconstruction in this area. The goal of this review is to compare the postoperative complications of application of these flaps. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of the PubMed, MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases was performed until 6 June 2020. Search terms included the lotus petal flap, vertical rectus abdominis muscle flap and the vulvoperineal area. Articles were independently screened by two researchers according to the PRISMA-guidelines. Results: A total of 1074 citations were retrieved and reviewed, of which 55 were included for full text analysis. Following lotus petal flap reconstructions, the complication rate varied from 0.0% to 69.9%, with more complications concerning the recipient site compared with the donor site complications (26.0% versus 4.5%). Following vertical rectus abdominis muscle flap reconstructions the complication rate varied between 0.0% and 85.7% with almost twice the number of recipient site complications compared to donor site complications (37.1% versus 17.8%). Conclusions: Overall, the lotus petal flap has lower complication rates at both the donor and the recipient site compared with the vertical rectus abdominis muscle flap. When both options seem viable, the lotus petal flap procedure may be preferred on the basis of the reported lower complication rates. Abbreviations: APE: abdominoperineal excision; ELAPE: extra levator abdominoperineal excision; LP flap: lotus petal flap; NIH: National Institute of Health; NR: not reported; RCT: randomized controlled trial; VRAM flap: vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap.

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.

Surgical therapy of vulvar cancer: how to choose the correct reconstruction?

Objective

To create a comprehensive algorithmic approach to reconstruction after vulvar cancer ablative surgery, which includes both traditional and perforator flaps, evaluating anatomical subunits and shape of the defect.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 80 cases of reconstruction after vulvar cancer ablative surgery, performed between June 2006 and January 2016, transferring 101 flaps. We registered the possibility to achieve the complete wound closure, even in presence of very complex defects, and the postoperative complications. On the basis of these experience, analyzing the choices made and considering the complications, we developed an algorithm to help with the selection of the flap in vulvoperineal reconstruction after oncologic ablative surgery for vulvar cancer.

Results

We employed eight types of different flaps, including 54 traditional fasciocutaneous V-Y flaps, 23 rectus abdominis myocutaneous flaps, 11 anterolateral thigh flaps, three V-Y gracilis myocutaneous flaps, three free style perforators V-Y flaps from the inner thigh, two Limberg flaps, two lotus flaps, two deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap, and one superficial circumflex iliac artery perforator flap. The structures most frequently involved in resection were vulva, perineum, mons pubis, groins, vagina, urethra and, more rarely, rectum, bladder, and lower abdominal wall.

Conclusion

The algorithm we implemented can be a useful tool to help flap selection. The key points in the decision-making process are: anatomical subunits to be covered, overall shape and symmetry of the defect and some patient features such as skin laxity or previous radiotherapy. Perforator flaps, when feasible, must be considered standard in vulvoperineal reconstruction, although in some cases traditional flaps remain the best choice.