Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37444455›Full record

ArticleCancers2023

Feasibility of Perineal Defect Reconstruction with Simplified Fasciocutaneous Inferior Gluteal Artery Perforator (IGAP) Flaps after Tumor Resection of the Lower Rectum: Incidence and Outcome in an Interdisciplinary Approach.

J T Thiel, H L Welskopf, C Yurttas, F Farzaliyev, A Daigeler, R Bachmann

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Hammock Flaps: A Novel Approach to Abdominoperineal Reconstruction.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

J T ThielDepartment of Hand, Plastic, Reconstructive and Burn Surgery, BG Unfallklinik Tuebingen, University of Tuebingen, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0261-8352
H L WelskopfGeneral, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Eberhard-Karl-Universität, University Hospital Tübingen, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany.
C YurttasGeneral, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Eberhard-Karl-Universität, University Hospital Tübingen, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9720-8243
F FarzaliyevDepartment of Hand, Plastic, Reconstructive and Burn Surgery, BG Unfallklinik Tuebingen, University of Tuebingen, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany.
A DaigelerDepartment of Hand, Plastic, Reconstructive and Burn Surgery, BG Unfallklinik Tuebingen, University of Tuebingen, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany.
R BachmannGeneral, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Eberhard-Karl-Universität, University Hospital Tübingen, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany.
BG Klinik Tübingen · DEUniversity of Tübingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExtralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) is a relatively new surgical technique for low rectal cancers, enabling a more radical approach than conventional abdominoperineal excision (APE) with a potentially better oncological outcome. To date, no standard exists for reconstruction after extended or extralevator approaches of abdominoperineal (ELAPE) resection for lower gastrointestinal cancer or inflammatory tumors. In the recent literature, techniques with myocutaneous flaps, such as the VY gluteal flap, the pedicled gracilis flap, or the pedicled rectus abdominis flaps (VRAM) are primarily described. We propose a tailored concept with the use of bilateral adipo-fasciocutaneous inferior gluteal artery perforator (IGAP) advancement flaps in VY fashion after ELAPE surgery procedures. This retrospective cohort study analyzes the feasibility of this concept and is, to our knowledge, one of the largest published series of IGAP flaps in the context of primary closure after ELAPE procedures.

methodsIn a retrospective cohort analysis, we evaluated all the consecutive patients with rectal resections from Jan 2017 to Sep 2021. All the patients with abdominoperineal resection were included in the study evaluation. The primary endpoint of the study was the proportion of plastic reconstruction and inpatient discharge.

resultsOut of a total of 560 patients with rectal resections, 101 consecutive patients with ELAPE met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study evaluation. The primary direct defect closure was performed in 72 patients (71.3%). In 29 patients (28.7%), the defect was closed with primary unilateral or bilateral IGAP flaps in VY fashion. The patients' mean age was 59.4 years with a range of 25-85 years. In 84 patients, the indication of the operation was lower rectal cancer or anal cancer recurrence, and non-oncological resections were performed in 17 patients. Surgery was performed in a minimally invasive abdominal approach in combination with open perineal extralevatoric abdominoperineal resection (ELAPE) and immediate IGAP flap reconstruction. The rate of perineal early complications after plastic reconstruction was 19.0%, which needed local revision due to local infection. All these interventions were conducted under general anesthesia (Clavien-Dindo IIIb). The mean length of the hospital stay was 14.4 days after ELAPE, ranging from 3 to 53 days.

conclusionsSince radical resection with a broad margin is the standard choice in primary, sphincter-infiltrating rectal cancer and recurrent anal cancer surgery in combination with ELAPE, the choice technique for pelvic floor reconstruction is under debate and there is no consensus. Using IGAP flaps is a reliable, technical, easy, and safe option, especially in wider defects on the pelvic floor with minimal donor site morbidity and an acceptable complication (no flap necrosis) rate. The data for hernia incidence in the long term are not known.

Indexed as

inferior gluteal artery perforator flapsperineal VY advancement flapperineal wound closureperineal wound complicationsrectal cancer

Identifiers

PMID37444455
PMCPMC10340405
OpenAlexW4382136559

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.