ABSTRACT
Resumen ANTECEDENTES: Los estadios clínicos avanzados del cáncer vulvar representan un reto quirúrgico y un abordaje que requiere ser multidisciplinario, con cirugía plástica que provea márgenes quirúrgicos adecuados, con menor tasa de complicaciones, cierre primario de la herida e inicio temprano de la terapia oncológica coadyuvante. OBJETIVOS: Describir y exponer las alternativas de reconstrucción vulvoperineal para pacientes con cáncer vulvar, atendidas en el Instituto Nacional de Cancerología de México. MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS: Análisis descriptivo y retrospectivo de casos de pacientes a quienes se hizo reconstrucción vulvoperineal en el Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, México, entre enero y diciembre de 2015, por el mismo cirujano plástico. Se muestra el algoritmo basado en su experiencia. RESULTADOS: Se analizaron 11 casos de pacientes operadas con diferentes técnicas de reconstrucción vulvoperineal, por defectos quirúrgicos del cáncer vulvar y se expuso el algoritmo utilizado y la experiencia del cirujano. CONCLUSIONES: Se revisaron las diferentes alternativas de reconstrucción para subsanar defectos quirúrgicos en pacientes con cáncer vulvar. Los algoritmos de tratamiento quirúrgico previamente publicados son confusos y complejos, quizá por la baja incidencia del cáncer vulvar y las diversas opciones de procedimientos de reconstrucción.
Abstract BACKGROUND: Vulvar cancer is a relatively infrequent disease, that constitutes 1-5% of all gynecological cancers. Surgery is the mainstay treatment is adequate resection, and lymph node evaluation, often have a high risk of relapse that may reach 65%. ADVANCED: Stages are a surgical challenge and multidisciplinary ap proach with plastic surgery will provide adequate surgical margins, less complications, adequate wound closure, and early adjuvant treat ment starting; as well as excellent cosmetic results, with functional, psychological and sexual morbidity decreased. OBJECTIVES: To describe and present the alternatives of vulvoperineal reconstruction in vulvar cancer at Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Mexico. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive analysis of eleven cases of vulvoperineal reconstruction in vulvar cancer was performed from January 2015 to December 2015, at Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Mexico; for one plastic surgeon; and demonstrated the algorithm base don their experience. RESULTS: We performed 11 patients of vulvar reconstruction with different reconstructive techniques, such as gracilis flapping, pudend, with a high success rate. as well as, to propose an algorithm based in our experience with vulvar cancer reconstruction at Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Mexico. CONCLUSION: The present article aims to review the reconstructive alternatives in Vulvar Cancer, several algorithms for surgical treatment have been published before; but they tend to be complex, in part be cause of the low incidence of Vulvar Cancer and the several options of reconstructive procedures.
ABSTRACT
Background: Over the last decade, evidence suggests the fallopian tubes are the origin of most of the high grade ovarian serous carcinomas. This type of carcinoma represents at least 50% of all the cases of epithelial ovarian cancer. Salpingectomy may lower the risk of high grade serous carcinoma. Removing the two fallopian tubes should be considered a strategy for risk reduction in patients who decide tubal sterilization or in patients with hysterectomy for benign disease. There are ongoing protocols that evaluate the ovarian hormonal production impact after prophilactic salpingectomy. In patients with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, salpingo-oophorectomy is recommended usually between 35 to 40 years of age for BRCA 1 and between 40 and 45 years of age for BRCA 2. The oopherectomy done whithin these decades has the consequences and side effects of premature menopause, some physicians have suggested doing a two step procedure: perform a salpingectomy as soon as the patient has decided to have permanent birth control, and doing the ophoorectomy at the onset of menopause. The oncological safety of this approach is still under evaluation and is not recommended outside a protocol.
