Trends in flap reconstruction of pelvic oncologic defects: Analysis of the national inpatient sample. Issue 9 (September 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Zeiderman, Matthew R.; Nuño, Miriam; Sahar, David E.; Farkas, Linda M.
• Is Part Of: Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery. Volume 74:Issue 9(2021)
• Page Start: 2085
• Page End: 2094
• Publication Date: 2021-09
• Subjects: Abdominoperineal resection -- Anal cancer -- Flap reconstruction pelvis -- Nis -- National inpatient sample -- Pelvic radiation -- Pelvic reconstruction -- Perineal reconstruction -- Rectal cancer -- Colon cancer -- colorectal cancer -- carcinoma; Surgery, Plastic -- Great Britain -- Periodicals; Reconstructive Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Surgery, Plastic -- Great Britain -- Periodicals; 617.9505
• DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2020.12.067
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1748-6815

Abstract

Summary: Background: Flap reconstruction of radiated pelvic oncologic defects decreases perineal wound-healing complications. How widely and how often reconstructions are performed, and how technical mastery and improved perioperative care has affected outcomes, is unknown. Our objective is to 1) provide a comprehensive evaluation of national trends in flap reconstruction of pelvic oncologic defects and 2) compare complications and length of stay (LOS) in patients with/without reconstruction. Methods: The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was queried (1998–2014) for patients diagnosed with cancer, primarily of the rectum and anus, who underwent abdominoperineal resection (APR) or pelvic exenteration (PE). Differences in complications and LOS were compared between patients with flap reconstruction versus primary closure. Regional and hospital outcomes were also analyzed. Results: The cohort included 117, 923 adult patients; 3, 673 (3.1%) underwent flap reconstruction. Flap reconstruction rates increased from 0.8% in 1998 to 9.8% in 2014. Extirpative procedures decreased 37.4% from 1998 to 2014. Flap reconstruction decreased risk of wound breakdown (OR 0.87; p = 0.0029) and need for secondary closure of dehiscence (OR 0.82; p = 0.0023) between periods 1998–2009 and 2010–2014. Median LOS was higher for flap patients (median [IQR] of 9.8 [7.2, 14.8] vs. 7.9 [6.1–11.0; p < 0.0001) and decreased over time. Conclusions: The use of flap reconstruction for pelvic oncologic defects increased from 1998 to 2014, with a reduction in LOS. Following flap reconstruction, overall complications are higher, but wound breakdown and dehiscence requiring reclosure are decreasing, suggesting technique maturation. We anticipate flap reconstruction rates will increase with further improvement in patient outcomes.