[Perineal soft-tissue reconstruction with vertical rectus abdominis myocutan (VRAM) flap following extended abdomino-perineal resection for cancer]

System-Level Determinants of Access to Flap Reconstruction after Abdominoperineal Resection

BACKGROUND

Reconstruction following abdominoperineal resection improves outcomes by reducing wound-related complications, particularly in irradiated patients. Little is known regarding system-level factors that impact patients' access to reconstructive surgery following abdominoperineal resection. This study aimed to identify barriers to undergoing reconstruction following abdominoperineal resection.

METHODS

Using the National Inpatient Sample database from 2012 to 2014, all encounters with colorectal or anorectal carcinoma patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection were extracted based on International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, diagnosis and procedure codes. Multivariable logistic regression analyzed the outcome of undergoing reconstruction.

RESULTS

The weighted sample included encounters with 19,205 abdominoperineal resection patients, of whom 1243 (6.5 percent) received a flap. Notable patient-level predictors of receiving a flap included age younger than 55 years (OR, 1.82; 95 percent CI, 1.23 to 2.74; p = 0.003) and neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (OR, 1.37; 95 percent CI, 1.01 to 1.88; p = 0.041). Race, sex, income level, insurance type, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index were not associated with increased odds of receiving a flap. For facility-level factors, urban teaching hospitals (OR, 23.6; 95 percent CI, 3.29 to 169.4; p = 0.002) and larger hospital bedsize (OR, 2.64; 95 percent CI, 1.53 to 4.56; p = 0.000) were associated with higher odds of reconstruction. Plastic surgery facility volume was not found to be a significant predictor of undergoing flap reconstruction (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection at academic centers were over 23 times more likely to undergo reconstruction, after adjusting for available confounders. Patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection at smaller, nonacademic centers may not have equitable access to reconstruction despite being appropriate candidates. Given the morbidity of abdominoperineal resection, patients should be referred to large, academic centers to have access to flap reconstruction.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Risk, III.

Interdisciplinary Surgical Approaches in Vaginal and Perineal Reconstruction of Advanced Rectal and Anal Female Cancer Patients

Relapsing or far advanced rectal and anal cancers remain difficult to treat and require interdisciplinary approaches. Due to modern standard protocols all patients receive irradiation and neoadjuvant chemotherapy-and in case of a relapse a second irradiation-rendering the surgical site prone to surgical site infections and oftentimes long lasting sinus and septic complications after exenteration in the pelvis. Despite an improved overall survival rate in these patients the downside of radical tumor surgery in the pelvis is a major loss of quality of life, especially in women when parts of the vagina need to be resected. Derived from our experince with over 300 patients receiving pelvic and perineal reconstruciton with a transpelvic vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (tpVRAM) flap we studied the impact of this surgical technique on the outcomes of female patients with or without vaginal reconstruction following pelvic exenteration. We found out that the tpVRAM flap is reliably perfused and helps to reduce long term wound healing desasters in the irradiated perineal/vaginal/gluteal region.

A hundred patients with vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) flap for pelvic reconstruction after total pelvic exenteration

PURPOSE

We analysed the outcomes of a series of 100 consecutive patients with anorectal cancer with neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and abdominoperineal exstirpation or total pelvic exenteration, who received a transpelvic vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) flap for pelvic, vaginal and/or perineal reconstruction and compare a cohort to patients without VRAM flaps.

METHODS

Within a 10-year period (2003-2013) in our institution 924 patients with rectal cancer stage y0 to y IV were surgically treated. Data of those 100 consecutive patients who received a transpelvic VRAM flap were collected and compared to patients without flaps.

RESULTS

In 100 consecutive patients with transpelvic VRAM flaps, major donor site complications occurred in 6 %, VRAM-specific perineal wound complications were observed in 11 % of the patients and overall 30-day mortality was 2 %.

CONCLUSIONS

The VRAM flap is a reliable and safe method for pelvic reconstruction in patients with advanced disease requiring pelvic exenteration and irradiation, with a relatively low rate of donor and recipient site complications. In this first study, to compare a large number of patients with VRAM flap reconstruction to patients without pelvic VRAM flap reconstruction, a clear advantage of simultaneous pelvic reconstruction is demonstrated.