Modified V-Y Fasciocutaneous Flap Reconstruction After Abdominoperineal Resection in Irradiated Patients Prevents Wound Dehiscence and Associated Complications: A Retrospective Analysis and Benchtop Confirmation

Perineal reconstruction after radical pelvic surgery: A cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Radical resection of pelvic and low rectal malignancies leads to complex reconstructive challenges. Many pelvic reconstruction options have been described including primary closure, omental flaps, and various fasciocutaneous and myocutaneous flaps. Little consensus exists in the literature on which of the various options in the reconstructive armamentarium provides a superior outcome. The authors of this study set out to determine the costs and quality-of-life outcomes of primary closure, vertical rectus abdominus muscle flap, gluteal thigh flap, and gracilis flap to aid surgeons in identifying an optimal reconstructive algorithm.

METHODS

A decision tree analysis was performed to analyze the cost, complications, and quality-of-life associated with reconstruction by primary closure, gluteal thigh flap, vertical rectus abdominus muscle flap, and gracilis flap. Costs were derived from Medicare reimbursement rates (FY2021), while quality-adjusted life-years were obtained from the literature.

RESULTS

Gluteal thigh flap was the most cost-effective treatment strategy with an overall cost of $62,078.28 with 6.54 quality-adjusted life-years and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $5,649.43. Gluteal thigh flap was always favored as the most cost-effective treatment strategy in our 1-way sensitivity analysis. Gracilis flap became more cost-effective than gluteal thigh flap, in the scenario where gluteal thigh flap complication rates increased by roughly 4% higher than gracilis flap complication rates.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that, when available, gluteal thigh flap be the first-line option for reconstruction of pelvic defects as it provides the best quality-of-life at the most cost-effective price point. However, future studies directly comparing outcomes of gluteal thigh flap to vertical rectus abdominus muscle and gracilis flap are needed to further delineate superiority.

A V–Y fasciocutaneous flap for perineal reconstruction following abdominoperineal resection: quicker and better than a myocutaneous gluteal flap?

Background

Abdominoperineal resection in patients with anorectal malignancies may require flap reconstruction for large perineal defects as an adjunct to the oncologic surgery. Perineal reconstruction should be timely, safe, and yield good long-term functional results. There is no agreement on the ideal approach.

Methods

We performed a retrospective observational cohort study to compare clinical outcomes and post-operative complications between a musculocutaneous gluteal flap and a fasciocutaneous V–Y flap for perineal reconstruction. We included all patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection at Karolinska University Hospital between 2016 and 2019. Patient demographics and comorbidities, as well as treatment data, post-operative complications, and follow-up data, were collected from medical records.

Results

A total of 44 patients were included with a mean age of 65 years where 73% were men. Reconstruction was made with a musculocutaneous gluteal flap in 19 patients (43%) and with a fasciocutaneous V–Y flap in 25 patients (57%). Flap-related post-operative complications occurred in 39% of the patients and the incidence did not differ between the groups (p = 0.831). Neither operative time, time to ambulant mobility, time to drain removal, nor time to epidural removal differed between the groups (p > 0.05). Four patients in the gluteal flap group and one patient in the V–Y flap group presented with long-term complications.

Conclusions

Post-operative complications are common after perineal reconstruction following abdominoperineal resection regardless of reconstructive approach. Our study confirms that both a fasciocutaneous and a musculocutaneous flap are acceptable options for perineal reconstruction.

Level of evidence: Level III, risk/prognostic study.