Background Gynecological reconstruction is difficult, particularly in cases with recurrence and received previous surgeries and/or radiotherapy and necessitate secondary reconstruction. Perforator flaps can preserve other donor sites for potential later reconstruction, and they also can be better tailored to the defect. We hypothesized that the use of perforator-based flaps can better restore the defect with less complications. Methods A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who underwent vulvar–perineum reconstruction between 2011 and 2018 by the senior author, and oncologic and reconstructive outcomes and complications were analyzed. Results Thirty-three patients underwent 55 soft tissue reconstructions for vulvar–perineum defects during the study period. The mean follow-up time was 27.6 ± 28.9 months. Squamous cell carcinoma was the most common cancer (45.5%). For 11 patients (33.3%), the procedures were performed for the treatment of recurrent cancer. The average defect size was 39.8 ± 34.3 cm2. The overall survival rate was 90.3%. Profunda artery perforator flaps were the most commonly applied flap for reconstruction in both the primary and recurrent groups. Poor wound healing was the most common complication which occurred in 10 of the 55 flaps (18.2%). Perforator flaps presented fewer complications than myocutaneous flaps or traditional random flaps. Similarly, Island pedicle flap design also presented fewer complications than traditional rotation flaps. With proper reconstruction, previous surgery or radiotherapy did not contribute to an increase in complications. Conclusion In our experience, perforator flaps can provide satisfactory reconstruction for perineum reconstruction with low postoperative complications while preserving other donor sites in the event of disease recurrence for repeat resection and reconstruction. Previous surgery or radiotherapy did not increase the complications or preclude its usage. A redefined reconstructive ladder was created to help selecting the best state-of-the-art technique for reconstruction to achieve better results.
Background Recent advances in immunosuppressive protocols have increasingly made hand allotransplantation a realistic reconstructive option with more than 100 cases performed worldwide. While attitudes toward allotransplantation have been assessed for North American surgeons and patients alike, similar assessments have previously remained unconducted in Asia in general and Taiwan in specific. This study examines the perceptions of both Taiwanese hand surgeons and hand reconstruction patients. Methods An email-based survey was sent to all active members of the Taiwanese Society for Surgery of the Hand. Surgeon training backgrounds and practice profiles were gathered as well as current beliefs on indications, risks, ethicality, priority of psychosocial issues, and obstacles to implementation. Patients receiving rehabilitation at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital Linkou after severe upper extremity injuries were invited to complete a patient survey. Demographics, injury characteristics, understanding of allotransplantation and immunosuppression, willingness to donate, and willingness to receive transplantation were assessed. Results Forty-four hand surgeons responded (24.3% response rate). The majority (61.4%) considered hand allotransplantation to be a high-risk operation, although 40% supported the development of hand allotransplantation under current techniques and immunosuppression. Bilateral hands loss was the most commonly accepted indication for transplant (90.9%), whereas dominant hand loss was less frequently accepted (43.2%). Treatment compliance and functional outcomes were the most frequent psychosocial issues of concern regarding patient counseling. Patient respondents were mostly in the fifth decade of life (29.5%) with at least a high school education (75.0%). Most were aware of the feasibility of hand transplantation (68.2%). Patients were more likely than surgeons to consider nondominant hand, multiple-digit, and thumb-only amputations as indications for transplantation. Functional outcomes and financial considerations were the most frequent patient concerns. Conclusions This study indicates there is support for hand allotransplantation as a solution for limb loss in both hand surgeons and hand patients in Taiwan. This study adds to the lack of knowledge regarding surgeon and patient attitudes toward allotransplantation in Asia, although further work is required to assess the willingness of broader Taiwanese medical to refer candidates and for the general population to donate.
Background: The purpose of this study was to examine the complications and outcomes after maxillofacial reconstruction using the free fibular flap in the pediatric population. Methods: A systematic review and descriptive analysis were conducted using data variables, including study characteristics; patient characteristics; postoperative complications (major and minor); surgical revision; and dental rehabilitation. Results: The systematic review resulted in 1622 articles, 55 of which met inclusion criteria for this study. The 55 articles consisted of 17 case series and 38 case reports with level III/IV and level V of evidence, respectively. Of the 155 identified pediatric patients, the rate of major complications was 13.5% and minor complications was 24.5%. The most common complication was mild growth distortion (n = 7) at the recipient site. Complications at the donor site were less common. During follow-up, 29 patients (18.7%) underwent or awaited surgical revision, and 43 patients (27.7%) underwent or awaited dental rehabilitation. Conclusions: Our study suggests that the free fibular flap for pediatric maxillofacial reconstruction is safe and reliable. Additionally, surgical revision to correct the functional impairments resulting from primary reconstruction using the free fibular flap is relatively common.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.