Surgical therapy of vulvar cancer: how to choose the correct reconstruction?.
- Author:
Stefano GENTILESCHI
1
;
Maria SERVILLO
;
Giorgia GARGANESE
;
Simona FRAGOMENI
;
Francesca DE BONIS
;
Giovanni SCAMBIA
;
Marzia SALGARELLO
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Algorithm; Perforator Flap; Perineal Reconstruction; Vulvar Neoplasms; Vulvar Reconstruction; Vulvoperineal Reconstruction
- MeSH: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Algorithms; Female; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures/adverse effects/methods; Humans; Middle Aged; Postoperative Complications/epidemiology; Reconstructive Surgical Procedures/*methods; Retrospective Studies; Surgical Flaps/adverse effects; Vulva/*surgery; Vulvar Neoplasms/*surgery
- From:Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 2016;27(6):e60-
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: 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.
