Outcomes of the use of different vulvar flaps for reconstruction during surgery for vulvar cancer. Issue 9 (September 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Tock, Stéphanie; Wallet, Jennifer; Belhadia, Marine; Hudry, Delphine; Ghesquière, Louise; Narducci, Fabrice; Leblanc, Eric
• Is Part Of: European journal of surgical oncology. Volume 45:Issue 9(2019)
• Page Start: 1625
• Page End: 1631
• Publication Date: 2019-09
• Subjects: Oncology -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Medical Oncology -- Periodicals; Neoplasms -- surgery -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques; Cancérologie -- Périodiques; Oncologie; Chirurgie (geneeskunde); Electronic journals; Electronic journals -- Sciences; Electronic journals -- Medicine; Electronic journals; 616.994059005
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2019.04.012
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0748-7983

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Vulvar carcinoma is a rare cancer, accounting for 3–5% of all gynecological cancers. Surgery is the standard treatment for patients with early stage vulvar cancer and vulvar reconstruction can be performed for these patients. The present study aimed to compare three different flap and to analyze the outcomes of vulvar surgery. Methods: We performed a single-center retrospective study between October 2001 and December 2015. We compare patients who underwent radical surgery for vulvar cancer combined with three different vulvar flap reconstructions (GTF, gluteal thigh flap; RF, rhomboid flap; VYF, V-Y flap). We collected data on the operating time, length of hospital stay, reoperation rate, and postoperative complications. Results: We reviewed 179 patients who underwent radical vulvar surgery and 61 (34%) of these underwent additional reconstruction. There were no significant differences in clinical characteristics between the three groups. The median hospital stay was significantly longer for the GTF group (24 days) than RF (17 days) and than VYF (14 days) (p = 0.002). No significant differences were found concerning the operating time. Regarding postoperative complications, reoperation rates of 69%, 41%, and 25% were noted in the GTF, RF, and VYF group, respectively (p = 0.04); partial necrosis was the most common postoperative complication. The overall and recurrence-free survivals were comparable between the three groups. Conclusion: When the defect is too large, VYF seems to be the procedure of choice for ensuring healing without a prolonged hospital stay compared to RF and GTF. Moreover, VYF was associated with a lower reoperation rate within 60 days compared to RF and GTF.