2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2018.12.044
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Surgical outcomes of VRAM versus gracilis flaps for the reconstruction of pelvic defects following oncologic resection✰

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
46
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(51 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
1
46
1
Order By: Relevance
“…There are no prospective studies comparing thigh or abdominal based flaps for pelvic floor and vaginal reconstruction. No differences were detected on outcomes or complications when thigh and abdominal flaps were compared in meta-analysis or recent retrospective studies [15,27,30]. Our overall complication rate of 71.8% was similar to the rates in previous publications [1,9,13]; notably, earlier reports did not always define complication severity.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 79%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…There are no prospective studies comparing thigh or abdominal based flaps for pelvic floor and vaginal reconstruction. No differences were detected on outcomes or complications when thigh and abdominal flaps were compared in meta-analysis or recent retrospective studies [15,27,30]. Our overall complication rate of 71.8% was similar to the rates in previous publications [1,9,13]; notably, earlier reports did not always define complication severity.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 79%
“…Harvesting the flap from the abdomen is associated with significant donor site morbidity as it weakens the anterior abdominal wall resulting abdominal wound complication rate up to 48% [16]. Some prefer gracilis flap over abdominal flap when bilateral ostomies are needed [27]. However, there is no clear evidence that use of abdominal flap would increase abdominal herniation risk [15,28] Second, harvesting the TMG flaps and reconstruction of the pelvic floor can be performed while the urologist performs urinary diversion.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the study of Sheckter et al [49] no recipient site complications occurred. Nine (23.1%) studies did not make the distinction between minor and major recipient site complications [30,31,39,42,47,54,[57][58][59]. Minor complications were reported in 28.4% of the cases and major complications in 8.7% of the cases.…”
Section: Vram Reconstructionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…In eight (20.5%) studies, no donor site complications occurred [41,49,[52][53][54][55][56]. Eight (20.5%) studies did not distinguish between minor and major complications for the donor site [5,7,30,31,39,[57][58][59]. In the remaining studies, minor complications were reported more often than major complications (15.2% versus 2.6%).…”
Section: Vram Reconstructionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The procedure leaves a large empty space in the pelvis, often leading to postoperative collections, abscess formation, prolonged ileus, intestinal obstruction and small bowel fistulas, collectively termed empty pelvis syndrome (EPS) [2][3][4]. A number of surgical options [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] have been suggested to overcome this problem. However, to date, the search for the ideal solution continues.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%