4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Perineal reconstruction after abdominoperineal excision using inferior gluteal artery perforator flaps

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 99, 期 4, 页码 584-588

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.7822

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Perineal wound complications following abdominoperineal excision (APE) for low rectal tumours remain an important cause of morbidity and prolonged hospital stay, particularly after chemoradiotherapy. The aim was to assess outcomes after using inferior gluteal artery perforator (IGAP) flaps for immediate perineal reconstruction, and to compare these with the authors' previous experience and published literature on myocutaneous flaps. Methods: A series of patients who underwent immediate IGAP flap reconstruction after APE between April 2008 and December 2010 were examined retrospectively to determine patient demographics, length of operation, complications (perineal wound and general) and length of hospital stay. Results: Forty patients with rectal adenocarcinoma (33 primary and 7 recurrent disease) underwent immediate IGAP flap reconstruction following APE. Median follow-up was 9 months. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was received by 98 per cent of the patients. Thirty-two patients underwent APE plus IGAP flaps (25 open, 7 laparoscopic), with a median operating time of 402 min, and eight patients had multivisceral resection (MVR) plus IGAP flaps (7 total pelvic exenteration (TPE), 1 abdominosacral resection), with a median duration of surgery of 561 min. There was one death (fatal stroke) and four major flap complications (10 per cent) (1 enteroperineal fistula, and 3 deep wound infections). Median length of hospital stay was 13 days after APE plus IGAP flaps and 27 days following MVR plus IGAP flaps. Late complications occurred in two patients who had vaginal reconstruction and developed perineal hernias requiring revisional surgery. Conclusion: Although operating times are long, the IGAP flap is robust, with no flap necrosis observed in this series.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据