Perineal and lower extremity reconstruction.
ABSTRACT After reading this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Perform a preoperative assessment of patients undergoing perineal and lower extremity reconstruction. 2. Describe the various tissue flaps used to perform these reconstructions and the advantages and disadvantages of each. 3. Provide appropriate postoperative care and interventions to maximize outcomes.
The lower extremity and perineum provide the foundation for upright posture and ambulation. These areas are made up of intricate contours with variable skin types and must withstand the functional demands of organ orifice support and weight-bearing forces. Successful reconstruction calls for careful preoperative planning and consideration of the site-specific demands.
The authors reviewed literature regarding the most current treatment strategies for lower extremity and perineal reconstruction.
Perineal reconstruction is typically related to genitourinary or digestive tract abnormalities, mainly malignancies. Local and regional flaps are the mainstay of therapy, depending on their availability and the need for adjuvant therapy. Postoperatively, pressure reduction and closed-suction drainage are of major consideration. The lower extremities are prone to trauma, and these wounds often involve underlying and exposed bony abnormalities, and this must be considered in operative planning. Significant defects may be reconstructed with local or regional flaps and free-tissue transfer. The location of the wound and extent of surrounding tissue compromise are of major concern when determining flap coverage. Postoperatively, transition to ambulation and weight-bearing status is paramount.
Reconstruction of the lower extremity and perineum requires recognition of the high functional demands of these areas. Local and regional flaps and free tissue transfer allow reconstruction of complex wounds in these areas. Selecting the correct flap and navigating the postoperative recovery to arrive at functional restoration remain a significant challenge.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Understand the steps for evaluation of a patient with a lower extremity wound before initiating medical or surgical intervention. 2. Acknowledge that limb amputation and salvage can both be appropriate definitive treatment options. 3. Select proper nonsurgical or surgical techniques for wound management. 4. Appreciate the difference in the expected outcome according to the perspective of the physician versus the patient. Lower extremity acute trauma is a common occurrence. Ultimate functional outcomes are similar whether amputation or salvage by limb reconstruction is the treatment pathway chosen. The reconstructive surgeon must be knowledgeable enough to assist in making the correct decision for either option. Débridement is the cornerstone of management before embarking on definitive wound closure. Nonsurgical devices have provided a transition to optimize the wound, sometimes even replacing or lessening the need for vascularized tissues to permit this coverage. Nevertheless, flaps will always have a role varying according to the involved region of the lower extremity. Traditional muscle flaps can often today be supplemented by the use of perforator flaps. The latter have great versatility as pedicled flaps for all zones of the lower limb, in addition to being a dependable free flap alternative. Horrendous injuries can now be expected to be salvaged, with a reasonable aesthetic result possible and with minimal donor-site morbidity. Preferences by both physicians and patients tend to favor the course to limb salvage, but it must be appreciated by the caregiver that it is always the patient who has to live with the residua of an altered limb and lifestyle.Plastic and reconstructive surgery 12/2013; 132(6):1733-41. · 2.74 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Perineal reconstruction is a challenging prospect. Conventional flap reconstruction often involves the sacrifice of a source artery and muscle, resulting in significant donor morbidity. Perforator flaps sought to overcome this but required tedious dissection. In this article, the authors introduce a new concept in perineal reconstruction using perforator-based island flaps. The perineal perforator-based island flap is raised based on perforators that most commonly arise from the perineal artery. The flap is designed in the inguinal and gluteal folds in order to achieve aesthetic, tension-free primary closure of the donor site. Eleven patients underwent perineal reconstruction using this approach. Patients ranged in age from 8 to 75 years, with a female-to-male ratio of 10:1. All 11 operations were performed by a single surgeon (S.Y.M.H.). There were no cases of flap loss or donor-site complications, as defined by wound infection, dehiscence, or keloid formation. All 11 patients reported excellent satisfaction with regard to donor-site aesthetics. Perineal perforator-based island flaps represent one of the most successful outcomes of the perforator concept. There is no sacrifice of donor vessels or muscle and minimal donor morbidity. The flap is also easily harvested and allows for challenging free-form flap design because it is based on reliable perforators. Therapeutic, IV.Plastic and reconstructive surgery 05/2014; 133(5):683e-7e. · 2.74 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: An abdominoperineal resection is an invasive procedure that leaves the patient with vast pelvic dead space. Traditionally, the vertical rectus abdominus myocutaneous flap is used to reconstruct these defects. Oftentimes, this flap cannot be used because of multiple ostomy placements or previous abdominal surgery. The anterolateral thigh flap can be used; however, the efficacy of this flap has been questioned. We report a single surgeon's experience with perineal reconstruction in patients with cancer with the use of either the vertical rectus abdominus myocutaneous flap or the anterolateral thigh flap to demonstrate acceptable outcomes with either repair modality. From 2010 to 2012, 19 consecutive patients with perineal defects secondary to cancer underwent flap reconstruction. A retrospective chart review of prospectively entered data was conducted to determine the frequency of short-term and long-term complications. This study was conducted at an academic, tertiary-care cancer center. Patients in the study were patients with cancer who were receiving perineal reconstruction. Interventions were surgical and included either abdomen- or thigh-based reconstruction. The main outcome measures included infection, flap failure, length of stay, and time to radiotherapy. Of the 19 patients included in our study, 10 underwent anterolateral thigh flaps and 9 underwent vertical rectus abdominus myocutaneous flaps for reconstruction. There were no significant differences in demographics between groups (p > 0.05). Surgical outcomes and complications demonstrated no significant differences in the rate of infection, hematoma, bleeding, or necrosis. The mean length of stay after reconstruction was 9.7 ± 3.4 days (± SD) in the anterolateral thigh flap group and 13.4 ± 7.7 days in the vertical rectus abdominus myocutaneous flap group (p > 0.05). The limitations of this study include a relatively small sample size and retrospective evaluation. This study suggests that the anterolateral thigh flap is an acceptable alternative to the vertical rectus abdominus myocutaneous flap for perineal reconstruction (see Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/DCR/A134).Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 06/2014; 57(6):725-32. · 3.34 Impact Factor