Comparison of inferior gluteal artery perforator flaps versus vertical rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flaps in the reconstruction of perineal wounds.

BACKGROUND

Achieving a healed perineal wound following chemoradiotherapy and abdominoperineal resection (APR) is challenging for surgeons and patients. Prior studies have shown trunk-based flaps, including vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) flaps, are superior to both primary closure and thigh-based flaps; however, there has been no direct comparison with gluteal fasciocutaneous flaps. This study evaluates postoperative complications after various methods of perineal flap closure of APR and pelvic exenteration defects.

METHODS

Retrospective review of patients who underwent APR or pelvic exenteration from April 2008 through September 2020 was analyzed for postoperative complications. Flap closure techniques, including VRAM, unilateral (IGAP), and bilateral (BIGAP) inferior gluteal artery perforator fasciocutaneous flaps, were compared.

RESULTS

Of 116 patients included, the majority underwent fasciocutaneous (BIGAP/IGAP) flap reconstruction (n = 69, 59.6%), followed by VRAM (n = 47, 40.5%). There were no significant differences between group patient demographics, comorbidities, body mass index, or cancer stage. There were no significant differences between BIGAP/IGAP and VRAM groups in minor complications (57% versus 49%, p = 0.426) or major complications (45% versus 36%, p = 0.351), including major/minor perineal wounds.

CONCLUSIONS

Prior studies have shown flap closure is preferable to primary closure after APR and neoadjuvant radiation but lack consensus on which flap offers superior postoperative morbidity. This study comparing outcomes of perineal flap closure showed no significant difference in postoperative complications. Fasciocutaneous flaps are a viable choice for the reconstruction of these challenging defects.

Informations de copyright

Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Conflict of Interest None.