TY - JOUR
T1 - Trends in flap reconstruction of pelvic oncologic defects
T2 - Analysis of the national inpatient sample
AU - Zeiderman, Matthew R.
AU - Nuño, Miriam
AU - Sahar, David E.
AU - Farkas, Linda M.
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors thank Dave Primm of the UT Southwestern Department of Surgery for assistance in article revision and edits and Ganesh Rajasekar, MPH, of the UC Davis Department of Surgery for assistance with statistical analysis.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2021/9
Y1 - 2021/9
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Abdominoperineal resection
KW - Anal cancer
KW - carcinoma
KW - Colon cancer
KW - colorectal cancer
KW - Flap reconstruction pelvis
KW - National inpatient sample
KW - Nis
KW - Pelvic radiation
KW - Pelvic reconstruction
KW - Perineal reconstruction
KW - Rectal cancer
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85099353517&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85099353517&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.bjps.2020.12.067
DO - 10.1016/j.bjps.2020.12.067
M3 - Article
C2 - 33455867
AN - SCOPUS:85099353517
SN - 1748-6815
VL - 74
SP - 2085
EP - 2094
JO - Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery
JF - Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery
IS - 9
ER -