Rekonstruktion onkologischer Defekte im Becken-Perinealbereich – Bericht zum Konsensus-Workshop im Rahmen der 44. Jahrestagung der DAM 2023 in Bern, CH

Zusammenfassung

Die chirurgisch-onkologische Therapie von Malignomen im Becken- und Perinealbereich geht mit einer hohen Komplikationsrate und Morbidität für Patientinnen und Patienten einher. Moderne multimodale Therapiekonzepte, wie etwa beim Anal- oder Rektumkarzinom mit neoadjuvanter Radio-Chemotherapie, erhöhen die Langzeit-Überlebensrate und senken das lokale Rezidivrisiko. Gleichzeitig geht die zunehmende chirurgische Radikalität und die höhere onkologische Sicherheit bei weiten Resektionsgrenzen zwangsläufig mit größeren und durch die Bestrahlung komplexeren Gewebedefekten am Beckenboden, perineal und sakral einher. Die plastisch-chirurgische Rekonstruktion von komplexen Defekten im Becken-Perinealbereich nach onkologischer Resektion bleibt daher nach wie vor herausfordernd. Das rekonstruktive Rüstzeug und somit die Behandlung solcher Defekte ist breit und reicht von lokalen und regionalen Lappenplastiken, über muskelbasierte bis hin zu mikrovaskulären und perforatorbasierten Verfahren. Während die Verwendung von Lappenplastiken mit einer mittlerweile in der Literatur gut dokumentierten, signifikanten Reduktion der postoperativen Komplikationen im Vergleich zum primären Verschluss einhergeht, fehlt es weiterhin an belastbaren Daten, welche die postoperativen Ergebnisse verschiedener rekonstruktiver Ansätze direkt miteinander vergleichen. Zudem zeigt die aktuellen Datenlage, dass die Erfassung der Lebensqualität dieser Patienten nur selten standardisiert erfolgt. Im Konsensus-Workshop der 44. Jahrestagung der Deutschsprachigen Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Mikrochirurgie zum Thema «Rekonstruktion onkologischer-Defekte im Becken-Perinealbereich» wurde die aktuelle Literatur diskutiert und Empfehlungen zur Rekonstruktion komplexer Defekte in diesem Bereich erarbeitet. Das Ziel dieses Workshops bestand darin, Wissenslücken zu identifizieren und soweit möglich einen Expertenkonsens zu etablieren, um die Qualität in der Rekonstruktion auf diesem anspruchsvollen Gebiet zu gewährleisten und kontinuierlich zu verbessern. Zudem wurde der Stellenwert vom «patient-reported outcome measure» in der Beckenrekonstruktion hervorgehoben und der Wille für dessen flächendeckenden Einsatz in einer patienten-zentrierten Gesundheitsversorgung festgehalten.

Abstract

The surgical-oncological treatment of pelvic and perineal malignancies is associated with a high complication rate and morbidity for patients. Modern multimodal treatment modalities, such as neoadjuvant radio-chemotherapy for anal or rectal cancer, increase the long-term survival rate while reducing the risk of local recurrence. Simultaneously, the increasing surgical radicality and higher oncological safety with wide resection margins is inevitably associated with larger and, due to radiation, more complex tissue defects in the perineal and sacral parts of the pelvic floor. Therefore, the plastic-surgical reconstruction of complex pelvic-perineal defects following oncological resection remains challenging. The reconstructive armamentarium, and thus the treatment of such defects, is broad and ranges from local, regional and muscle-based flaps to microvascular and perforator-based procedures. While the use of flaps is associated with a significant, well-documented reduction in postoperative complications compared to primary closure, there is still a lack of reliable data directly comparing the postoperative results of different reconstructive approaches. Additionaly, the current data shows that the quality of life of these patients is rarely recorded in a standardised manner. In a consensus workshop at the 44^th annual meeting of the German-speaking Association for Microsurgery on the topic of „Reconstruction of oncological defects in the pelvic-perineal area“, the current literature was discussed and recommendations for the reconstruction of complex defects in this area were developed. The aim of this workshop was to identify knowledge gaps and establish an expert consensus to ensure and continuously improve the quality of reconstruction in this challenging area. In addition, the importance of the „patient-reported outcome measures“ in pelvic reconstruction was highlighted, and the commitment to its widespread use in the era of value-based healthcare was affirmed.

Schlüsselwörter

Perineale Rekonstruktion - Lebensqualität - Perforator Lappenplastik - Muskulokutane Lappenplastik

Keywords

perineal reconstruction - patient-reported outcome measures - perforator flap - quality of life - musculocutaneous flap

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 01. April 2024

Angenommen: 26. Juni 2024

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
13. August 2024

• Literatur

• 1 Oymans EJ, de Kroon CD, Bart J. et al. Incidence of gynaecological cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: A population-based study in the Netherlands. Cancer Epidemiol 2023; 85: 102405
• 2 Siegel RL, Wagle NS, Cercek A. et al. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2023. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2023; 73: 233-254
• 3 van de Velde CJH, Boelens PG, Borras JM. et al. EURECCA colorectal: Multidisciplinary management: European consensus conference colon & rectum. European Journal of Cancer 2014; 50 (01) e1-e34
• 4 Pelvic Exenteration for Advanced Nonrectal Pelvic Malignancy. Annals of Surgery 2019; 270: 899
• 5 Mattson JN, Bender DP. Minimally Invasive Robotic Surgery for Gynecologic Cancers: A Review. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 2020; 63: 24
• 6 Toritani K, Watanabe J, Nakagawa K. et al. Randomized controlled trial to evaluate laparoscopic versus open surgery in transverse and descending colon cancer patients. Int J Colorectal Dis 2019; 34: 1211-1220
• 7 Pellino G, Biondo S, Codina Cazador A. et al. Pelvic exenterations for primary rectal cancer: Analysis from a 10-year national prospective database. World J Gastroenterol 2018; 24: 5144-5153
• 8 Jäger L, Nilsson PJ, Rådestad AF. Pelvic Exenteration for Recurrent Gynecologic Malignancy: A Study of 28 Consecutive Patients at a Single Institution. International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer 2013; 23
• 9 Law WL, Chu KW, Choi HK. Total pelvic exenteration for locally advanced rectal cancer. J Am Coll Surg 2000; 190: 78-83
• 10 Yang TX, Morris DL, Chua TC. Pelvic Exenteration for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 2013; 56: 519
• 11 Witte DYS, van Ramshorst GH, Lapid O. et al. Flap Reconstruction of Perineal Defects after Pelvic Exenteration: A Systematic Description of Four Choices of Surgical Reconstruction Methods. Plast Reconstr Surg 2021; 147: 1420-1435
• 12 Buchel EW, Finical S, Johnson C. Pelvic Reconstruction Using Vertical Rectus Abdominis Musculocutaneous Flaps. Annals of Plastic Surgery 2004; 52: 22
• 13 Butler CE, Rodriguez-Bigas MA. Pelvic Reconstruction After Abdominoperineal Resection: Is It Worthwhile. Ann Surg Oncol 2005; 12: 91-94
• 14 Anthony JP, Mathes SJ. The recalcitrant perineal wound after rectal extirpation. Applications of muscle flap closure. Arch Surg 1990; 125: 1371-1376 discussion 1376-1377
• 15 Chessin DB, Hartley J, Cohen AM. et al. Rectus Flap Reconstruction Decreases Perineal Wound Complications After Pelvic Chemoradiation and Surgery: A Cohort Study. Ann Surg Oncol 2005; 12: 104-110
• 16 Fix GM, VanDeusen Lukas C, Bolton RE. et al. Patient-centred care is a way of doing things: How healthcare employees conceptualize patient-centred care. Health Expect 2018; 21: 300-307
• 17 Squitieri L, Bozic KJ, Pusic AL. The Role of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Value-Based Payment Reform. Value Health 2017; 20: 834-836
• 18 Vigneswaran HT, Schwarzman LS, Madueke IC. et al. Morbidity and Mortality of Total Pelvic Exenteration for Malignancy in the US. Ann Surg Oncol 2021; 28: 2790-2800
• 19 Nelson RA, Butler CE. Surgical outcomes of VRAM versus thigh flaps for immediate reconstruction of pelvic and perineal cancer resection defects. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2009; 123: 175-183
• 20 Nisar PJ, Scott HJ. Myocutaneous flap reconstruction of the pelvis after abdominoperineal excision. Colorectal Disease 2009; 11: 806-816
• 21 Horch RE, Ludolph I, Cai A. et al. Interdisciplinary Surgical Approaches in Vaginal and Perineal Reconstruction of Advanced Rectal and Anal Female Cancer Patients. Front Oncol 2020; 10: 719
• 22 Horch RE, Gitsch G, Schultze-Seemann W. Bilateral pedicled myocutaneous vertical rectus abdominus muscle flaps to close vesicovaginal and pouch-vaginal fistulas with simultaneous vaginal and perineal reconstruction in irradiated pelvic wounds. Urology 2002; 60: 502-507
• 23 Radwan RW, Tang AM, Harries RL. et al. Vertical rectus abdominis flap (VRAM) for perineal reconstruction following pelvic surgery: A systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2021; 74: 523-529
• 24 Horch RE, Hohenberger W, Eweida A. et al. A hundred patients with vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) flap for pelvic reconstruction after total pelvic exenteration. Int J Colorectal Dis 2014; 29: 813-823
• 25 Kim E, Fernando C, McCombie A. et al. Abdominal and perineal hernia rates following vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) flap reconstruction – a supraregional experience. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2022; 75: 1158-1163
• 26 Asaad M, Mitchell D, Slovacek C. et al Surgical Outcomes of Vertical Rectus Abdominis Myocutaneous Flap Pelvic Reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2021; 10.1097/PRS.0000000000011233
• 27 Schellerer VS, Bartholomé L, Langheinrich MC. et al. Donor Site Morbidity of Patients Receiving Vertical Rectus Abdominis Myocutaneous Flap for Perineal, Vaginal or Inguinal Reconstruction. World J Surg 2021; 45: 132-140
• 28 Butler CE, Gündeslioglu ÖA, Rodriguez-Bigas MA. Outcomes of Immediate Vertical Rectus Abdominis Myocutaneous Flap Reconstruction for Irradiated Abdominoperineal Resection Defects. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 2008; 206: 694
• 29 Brodbeck R, Horch RE, Arkudas A. et al. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery in the Treatment of Oncological Perineal and Genital Defects. Front Oncol 2015; 5: 212
• 30 Jayne DG, Guillou PJ, Thorpe H. et al. Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 3061-3068
• 31 Klaver CEL, Kappen TM, Borstlap WAA. et al. Laparoscopic surgery for T4 colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2017; 31: 4902-4912
• 32 Leung KL, Kwok SPY, Lam SCW. et al. Laparoscopic resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma: prospective randomised trial. Lancet 2004; 363: 1187-1192
• 33 Fujii S, Ishibe A, Ota M. et al. Short-term results of a randomized study between laparoscopic and open surgery in elderly colorectal cancer patients. Surg Endosc 2014; 28: 466-476
• 34 Srinivasaiah N, Shekleton F, Kelly ME. et al. Minimally invasive surgery techniques in pelvic exenteration: a systematic and meta-analysis review. Surg Endosc 2018; 32: 4707-4715
• 35 Hainsworth A, Al Akash M, Roblin P. et al. Perineal reconstruction after abdominoperineal excision using inferior gluteal artery perforator flaps. Br J Surg 2012; 99: 584-588
• 36 Horch RE, D’Hoore A, Holm T. et al. Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Resection with Open Posterior Cylindrical Excision and Primary Transpelvic VRAM Flap. Ann Surg Oncol 2012; 19: 502-503
• 37 Das Gupta K, Busch K, Kall S. et al. Plastisch-rekonstruktive Therapie bei postonkologischen Defekten im Bereich der Beckenregion. Chirurg 2004; 75: 1135-1144
• 38 Vermaas M, Ferenschild FTJ, Hofer SOP. et al. Primary and secondary reconstruction after surgery of the irradiated pelvis using a gracilis muscle flap transposition. Eur J Surg Oncol 2005; 31: 1000-1005
• 39 Baskar R, Lee KA, Yeo R. et al. Cancer and Radiation Therapy: Current Advances and Future Directions. Int J Med Sci 2012; 9: 193-199
• 40 Davis AM, O’Sullivan B, Turcotte R. et al. Late radiation morbidity following randomization to preoperative versus postoperative radiotherapy in extremity soft tissue sarcoma. Radiotherapy and Oncology 2005; 75: 48-53
• 41 Borger JH, Kemperman H, Sillevis Smitt H. et al. Dose and volume effects on fibrosis after breast conservation therapy. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics 1994; 30: 1073-1081
• 42 Koesters EC, Chang DW. Radiation and free flaps: what is the optimal timing?. Gland Surg 2023; 12: 1122-1130
• 43 Blondeel PN, Van Landuyt KHI, Monstrey SJM. et al The „Gent“ consensus on perforator flap terminology: preliminary definitions. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003; 112: 1378-1383 quiz 1383, 1516; discussion 1384-1387
• 44 Agostini T, Lazzeri D, Spinelli G. Anterolateral thigh flap thinning: techniques and complications. Ann Plast Surg 2014; 72: 246-252
• 45 Lannon DA, Ross GL, Addison PD. et al. Versatility of the proximally pedicled anterolateral thigh flap and its use in complex abdominal and pelvic reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127: 677-688
• 46 Zhang W, Zeng A, Yang J. et al. Outcome of vulvar reconstruction by anterolateral thigh flap in patients with advanced and recurrent vulvar malignancy. J Surg Oncol 2015; 111: 985-991
• 47 Zelken JA, AlDeek NF, Hsu C-C. et al. Algorithmic approach to lower abdominal, perineal, and groin reconstruction using anterolateral thigh flaps. Microsurgery 2016; 36: 104-114
• 48 Guinier C, de Clermont-Tonnerre E, Tay JQ. et al. The deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap: a narrative review on its various uses in non-breast reconstruction. Ann Transl Med 2023; 11: 130
• 49 Arquette C, Wan D, Momeni A. Perineal Reconstruction With the Profunda Artery Perforator Flap. Annals of Plastic Surgery 2022; 88: 434
• 50 Chang TN-J, Lee C-H, Lai C-H. et al. Profunda artery perforator flap for isolated vulvar defect reconstruction after oncological resection. Journal of Surgical Oncology 2016; 113: 828-834
• 51 Chrelias T, Berkane Y, Rousson E. et al. Gluteal Propeller Perforator Flaps: A Paradigm Shift in Abdominoperineal Amputation Reconstruction. J Clin Med 2023; 12: 4014
• 52 Demmer W, Alt V, Mert S. et al. Coverage of complex pararectal pelvic defects: role of the free myocutaneous musculus vastus lateralis flap. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 2024;
• 53 Wong A, Sbitany H. Reconstruction of Intrapelvic Defects Using the Free Anterolateral Thigh Flap: Expanding the Traditional Algorithm. Ann Plast Surg 2020; 84: 554-558
• 54 Villa M, Saint-Cyr M, Wong C. et al. Extended vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap for pelvic reconstruction: three-dimensional and four-dimensional computed tomography angiographic perfusion study and clinical outcome analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127: 200-209
• 55 Mohan AT, Saint-Cyr M. Anatomic and physiological fundamentals for autologous breast reconstruction. Gland Surg 2015; 4: 116-133
• 56 Whetzel TP, Lechtman AN. The Gracilis Myofasciocutaneous Flap: Vascular Anatomy and Clinical Application. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 1997; 99: 1642
• 57 Wechselberger G, Schoeller T, Bauer T. et al. Surgical technique and clinical application of the transverse gracilismyocutaneous free flap. Br J Plast Surg 2001; 54: 423-427
• 58 Lohman RF, Ozturk CN, Ozturk C. et al. An Analysis of Current Techniques Used for Intraoperative Flap Evaluation. Ann Plast Surg 2015; 75: 679-685
• 59 Cornelissen AJM, Beugels J, van Kuijk SMJ. et al. Sensation of the autologous reconstructed breast improves quality of life: a pilot study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2018; 167: 687-695
• 60 Persichetti P, Simone P, Berloco M. et al. Vulvo-perineal reconstruction: medial thigh septo-fascio-cutaneous island flap. Ann Plast Surg 2003; 50: 85-89
• 61 Tsukuura R, Yamamoto T. Sensate superior gluteal artery perforator flap for reconstruction of sacrococcygeal large wound dehiscence: A case report and literature review. Microsurgery 2022; 42: 271-276
• 62 di Summa PG, Tremp M, Meyer Zu Schwabedissen M. et al. The Combined Pedicled Anterolateral Thigh and Vastus Lateralis Flap as Filler for Complex Perineal Defects. Ann Plast Surg 2015; 75: 66-73
• 63 Coltro PS, Ferreira MC, Busnardo FF. et al. Evaluation of cutaneous sensibility of the internal pudendal artery perforator (IPAP) flap after perineal reconstructions. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2015; 68: 252-261
• 64 Morrison SD, Massie JP, Dellon AL. Genital Sensibility in the Neophallus: Getting a Sense of the Current Literature and Techniques. J Reconstr Microsurg 2019; 35: 129-137
• 65 Kocarnik JM, Compton K, Dean FE. et al. Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived With Disability, and Disability-Adjusted Life Years for 29 Cancer Groups From 2010 to 2019. JAMA Oncol 2022; 8: 420–444
• 66 Donaldson M. Using patient-reported outcomes in clinical oncology practice: benefits, challenges and next steps. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research 2006; 6: 87-95
• 67 csi. EORTC QLQ-C30. EORTC – Quality of Life 2017; Im Internet: https://qol.eortc.org/questionnaires/core/eortc-qlq-c30/; Stand: 10.05.2024
• 68 Rosen R, Brown C, Heiman J. et al. The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): a multidimensional self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. J Sex Marital Ther 2000; 26: 191-208
• 69 EQ-5D-3L. EuroQol. Im Internet: https://euroqol.org/information-and-support/euroqol-instruments/eq-5d-3l/; Stand: 10.05.2024
• 70 Patrick DL, Deyo RA. Generic and Disease-Specific Measures in Assessing Health Status and Quality of Life. Medical Care 1989; 27: S217
• 71 Churruca K, Pomare C, Ellis LA. et al. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): A review of generic and condition-specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues. Health Expect 2021; 24: 1015-1024