PERINEAL REPAIR AFTER ABDOMINOPERINEAL EXCISION WITH RECTUS ABDOMINIS MYOCUTANEOUS FLAP.

BACKGROUND: Myocutaneous flap of the rectus abdominis filling the perineal defect after APR.. Abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (APR) remains the only potential curative treatment for very low rectal adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma of the anus. Yet, it implies a significant perineal exenteration and has set the attention on the perineal reconstruction. AIM: To present technique used in one case of APR for anal cancer, with resection of the vaginal posterior wall with large perineal defect which has called for the necessity of a flap for reconstruction. METHOD: To cover the large perineal defect and reconstruct the posterior vaginal wall was perform a standardized and reproducible surgical technique using oblique rectus abdominis myocutaneous (ORAM) flap. The overlying skin of this flap is thick and well vascularized by both superficial branches and perforators of the superior epigastric artery and the deep inferior epigastric artery which serves as the vascular pedicle for the ORAM flap. RESULTS: This procedure was applied in a 65-year-old woman with recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the anus infiltrating the posterior wall of the vagina. Was performed an APR with en-bloc resection of the vaginal posterior wall in order to achieve tumor-free margins. Postoperative course was uneventful and she was discharged home at postoperative day 9. Final pathological report confirmed the oncological adequacy of the procedure (R0) and showed a rypT4N0 lesion. CONCLUSION: Flap reconstruction is an effective way to cover the perineal wound reducing both perineal complication rate and wound healing delay. The ORAM is particularly interesting for female whose tumors require resection and subsequent reconstruction of the posterior wall of the vagina.

Esophageal reconstruction by colon interposition after esophagectomy for cancer analysis of current indications, operative outcomes, and long-term survival.

INTRODUCTION: Colon interposition is an alternative solution for esophageal reconstruction if the stomach cannot be used. The study reviews current indications and results of coloplasty for cancer. METHODS: Patients who underwent colon interposition for gastro-esophageal malignancy were included. Primary coloplasty was defined as upfront colon interposition. Salvage coloplasty was defined as colon interposition after primary reconstruction failure. Mortality, morbidity, function, and survival were evaluated. RESULTS: We included 28 patients (24 men, median age 61 years). Ten (36%) patients underwent primary coloplasty due to previous gastrectomy (n = 5), conduit gastric cancer (n = 2), extensive gastroesophageal involvement (n = 2), and gastric cancer recurrence (n = 1). Salvage coloplasty was performed in 18 (64%) patients for postoperative graft necrosis (n = 5) and intractable strictures (n = 3). Operative mortality, morbidity, and graft necrosis rates were 14% (4/28), 86% (24/28), and 14% (4/28), respectively; there were no significant differences between primary and salvage coloplasty. Survival rates at 1-, 3-, and 5 years were 81%, 51%, and 38%, respectively. Survival was decreased after primary coloplasty when compared to salvage coloplasty (P = 0.03). Nine patients experienced tumor recurrence (primary: n = 6, salvage: n = 3) after coloplasty and eight of them died. CONCLUSION: Colon interposition after esophagectomy is a useful but morbid endeavor. Colon interposition as salvage therapy is associated with improved survival compared to its use as primary esophageal replacement, and colon interposition in the latter cohort should be used with caution due to poor cancer-specific survival in this patient population.