» Articles » PMID: 35406468

Reconstructive Surgery Versus Primary Closure Following Vulvar Cancer Excision: A Wide Single-Center Experience

Overview
Journal Cancers (Basel)
Publisher MDPI
Specialty Oncology
Date 2022 Apr 12
PMID 35406468
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

(1) Background: plastic reconstruction in vulvar surgery can lead to a better treatment outcome than primary closure. This study aims to compare the preoperative parameters (co-morbidities and tumor size) and postoperative results (tumor free margins and wound healing) between the primary closure and reconstructive surgery after vulvar cancer surgery; (2) Methods: this is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from 2009 to 2021 at a tertiary cancer institution; (3) Results: 177 patients were included in the final analysis (51 patients had primary closure PC and 126 had reconstructive surgery RS). About half (49%) of the PC patients had no co-morbidities ( = 0.043). The RS group had a 45 mm median maximal tumor diameter compared to the PC group's 23 mm ( = 0.013). More than 90% of RS and 80% of PC had tumor-free margins ( = 0.1). Both groups had anterior vulvar excision as the most common surgery (52.4% RS vs. 23.5% PC; = 0.001). Both groups had identical rates of wound healing disorders. In a median follow-up of 39 months; recurrent disease was found in 23.5% of PC vs. 10.3% in RS ( = 0.012). In terms of overall survival there was no significant difference between the both groups; (4) Conclusions: reconstructive vulvar surgery enables enhanced complete resection rates of larger vulvar tumors with better anatomical restoration and a comparable wound recovery in comparison to primary closure. This results in a lower recurrence rate despite the increased tumor volume.

Citing Articles

The Importance of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in Oncological Vulvoperineal Defect Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.

Speck N, Stoffel J, Wendelspiess S, Appenzeller-Herzog C, Schaefer K, Kouba L Curr Oncol. 2024; 31(10):6300-6313.

PMID: 39451774 PMC: 11506363. DOI: 10.3390/curroncol31100470.


Perforator versus Non-Perforator Flap-Based Vulvoperineal Reconstruction-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Wendelspiess S, Kouba L, Stoffel J, Speck N, Appenzeller-Herzog C, Gahl B Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(12).

PMID: 38927919 PMC: 11202299. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16122213.


The inguinal fold as a flaps bank: the inguinal fold island flap (IFI flap).

Cordova A, Rosatti F, Toia F, Di Lorenzo S Updates Surg. 2022; 75(3):785-789.

PMID: 36520270 DOI: 10.1007/s13304-022-01441-z.


Management of Vulvovaginal Cellular Angiofibroma: A Single-Center Experience.

Yuan Z, Wang J, Wang Y, Feng F, Pan L, Xiang Y Front Surg. 2022; 9:899329.

PMID: 35903253 PMC: 9316590. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.899329.

References
1.
Weikel W, Hofmann M, Steiner E, Knapstein P, Koelbl H . Reconstructive surgery following resection of primary vulvar cancers. Gynecol Oncol. 2005; 99(1):92-100. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.05.031. View

2.
Pavlov A, Bhatt N, Damitz L, Ogunleye A . A Review of Reconstruction for Vulvar Cancer Surgery. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2021; 76(2):108-113. DOI: 10.1097/OGX.0000000000000866. View

3.
Landoni F, Proserpio M, Maneo A, Cormio G, Zanetta G, Milani R . Repair of the perineal defect after radical vulvar surgery: direct closure versus skin flaps reconstruction. A retrospective comparative study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995; 35(3):300-4. DOI: 10.1111/j.1479-828x.1995.tb01987.x. View

4.
Gentileschi S, Caretto A, Servillo M, Stefanizzi G, Alberti C, Garganese G . Feasibility, indications and complications of SCIP flap for reconstruction after extirpative surgery for vulvar cancer. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2021; 75(3):1150-1157. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2021.11.005. View

5.
Al-Benna S, Tzakas E . Postablative reconstruction of vulvar defects with local fasciocutaneous flaps and superficial fascial system repair. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012; 286(2):443-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-012-2262-1. View