Quality of Life, Sexual Functioning, and Physical Functioning Following Perineal Reconstruction with the Lotus Petal Flap

The Importance of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in Oncological Vulvoperineal Defect Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have gained increased importance in assessing outcomes after reconstructive surgery. This also applies to the reconstruction of vulvoperineal defects after resection of gynecological or colorectal cancers in women. The objective of this study is to analyze the current state of PROM tool use within this patient population.

METHODS

By systematic literature searches in Embase, Medline, and Web of Science, English-language studies published after 1980, including randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case series reporting on vulvoperineal defect reconstruction, which were included if they also analyzed quality of life (QoL) and/or PROMs. The PROM tools used by each study were extracted, analyzed, and compared.

RESULTS

The primary search yielded 2576 abstracts, of which 395 articles were retrieved in full text. Of these, 50 reported on vulvoperineal defect reconstruction, among which 27 studies analyzing QoL were found. Of those, 17 met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. After full-text screening, 14 different PROM tools and 5 individual, non-standardized questionnaires were identified. Only 22% of studies used a validated PROM tool.

CONCLUSION

Far too few studies currently use PROM tools to assess outcomes in oncological vulvoperineal defect reconstruction. Less than half of the used PROMs are validated. No PROM was designed to specifically measure QoL in this patient population. The standardized implementation of a validated PROM tool in the clinical treatment of this patient population is an essential step to improve outcomes, enable the comparison of research, and support evidence-based treatment approaches.

A review of functional and surgical outcomes of gynaecological reconstruction in the context of pelvic exenteration

BACKGROUND

Radical surgical excision may be the only curative option for patients with advanced pelvic malignancy, but concerns surrounding the functional outcomes and survivorship of patients undergoing exenterative surgery remain. This is especially important in the context of vulvovaginal resection, where patients are often younger and surgery can have a profoundly negative impact on quality of life, body image and overall wellbeing. Reconstructive procedures are an important means of mitigating these adverse effects but outcomes are poorly described.

AIM

To define the outcomes associated with gynaecological reconstructive procedures following pelvic exenterative surgery and to compare them with the outcomes of those patients who did not undergo reconstruction.

METHODS

An international, multicentre retrospective investigation comparing the outcomes of reconstruction with no reconstruction. The protocol was prospectively registered (NCT05074069).

RESULTS

334 patients were included. 77 patients had a neovagina reconstructed, 139 patients underwent flap reconstruction and 118 were not reconstructed. Patients who underwent reconstruction had a longer operative time and hospital stay with an increased risk of minor perineal complications. Reconstruction did not confer an increased risk of surgical reintervention, and overall complication rates were equivalent. Procedure-specific major morbidity was 5.2 % and 11.5 % for neovaginal and flap reconstruction, respectively. 66 % of patients undergoing neovaginal reconstruction experienced no long term morbidity. 7 % developed neovaginal stenosis and 12 % suffered disease recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Neovaginal reconstruction is safe in carefully selected patients and offers specific advantages over alternative techniques, with few patients requiring reoperation. Primary closure does not increase perineal morbidity.

Cumulative 5-year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Biological Mesh With Primary Perineal Wound Closure After Extralevator Abdominoperineal Resection (BIOPEX-study)

OBJECTIVE

To determine long-term outcomes of a randomized trial (BIOPEX) comparing biological mesh and primary perineal closure in rectal cancer patients after extralevator abdominoperineal resection and preoperative radiotherapy, with a primary focus on symptomatic perineal hernia.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

BIOPEX is the only randomized trial in this field, which was negative on its primary endpoint (30-day wound healing).

METHODS

This was a posthoc secondary analysis of patients randomized in the BIOPEX trial to either biological mesh closure (n = 50; 2 dropouts) or primary perineal closure (n = 54; 1 dropout). Patients were followed for 5 years. Actuarial 5-year probabilities were determined by the Kaplan-Meier statistic.

RESULTS

Actuarial 5-year symptomatic perineal hernia rates were 7% (95% CI, 0-30) after biological mesh closure versus 30% (95% CI, 10-49) after primary closure (P = 0.006). One patient (2%) in the biomesh group underwent elective perineal hernia repair, compared to 7 patients (13%) in the primary closure group (P = 0.062). Reoperations for small bowel obstruction were necessary in 1/48 patients (2%) and 5/53 patients (9%), respectively (P = 0.208). No significant differences were found for chronic perineal wound problems, locoregional recurrence, overall survival, and main domains of quality of life and functional outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Symptomatic perineal hernia rate at 5-year follow-up after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer was significantly lower after biological mesh closure. Biological mesh closure did not improve quality of life or functional outcomes.

Aesthetic Outcomes of Perineal Reconstruction with the Lotus Petal Flap

The lotus petal flap can be applied for reconstruction of extensive defects in the vulvoperineal area. Studies on aesthetic outcomes are lacking. This study aimed to fill this gap.

Methods

All patients who underwent lotus petal flap reconstruction between October 2011 and December 2015 were asked permission to have their photographs used. Two questionnaires were used: (1) the Strasser score to assess the overall aesthetic results (range 0-15) and (2) the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS; range 6-60). Six plastic surgeons and 6 laymen filled in the Strasser score and the Observer scale of the POSAS. Patients filled in the Strasser score, the Patient scale of the POSAS and scored their overall satisfaction with the aesthetic results on a Likert scale (0-10).

Results

The photographs of 11 patients were included. The median Strasser score of all observers of 11.9 (range 0.0-75.0) indicated a mediocre aesthetic result. The median total POSAS score of 15.6 (range 6.0-41.0) indicated an aesthetically acceptable scar. Strasser and POSAS scores of the plastic surgeons and laymen did not differ significantly from the patients' scores. The patient satisfaction score with the aesthetic result was a median of 6.0 of 10.

Conclusions

The findings indicate that, overall, patients were moderately satisfied with the aesthetic results of their lotus petal flap reconstructions, as were the plastic surgeons and laymen. For clinical practice, it is important that the plastic surgeon manages expectations carefully before surgery, as it is possible that patients might experience a rather low aesthetic outcome after perineal reconstruction.

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.