Inferior Gluteal Artery Perforator Research Articles

A Guide to Perforator Flap Selection for Buttock Pressure Sore Reconstruction.

Perforator flaps have been increasingly used to repair stage IV buttock pressure ulcers. However, no one has proposed an approach for stage IV buttock pressure ulcers repairing based on the subregion of buttock pressure ulcers. This study aims to evaluate the effect of perforator flaps in the repair of stage IV buttock pressure ulcers, and flap selection was based on the location of the pressure ulcers. Over the past 5 years, we evaluated 65 cases of stage IV buttock pressure ulcers repaired using perforator flaps. Flap selection was based on the subregion of each buttock pressure ulcer, following our approach. A total of 87 perforator flaps were used for 65 cases, including 42 superior gluteal artery perforator flaps, 19 fourth lumbar artery perforator flaps, and 26 descending inferior gluteal artery perforator flaps. All patients showed satisfactory reconstruction. The authors' approach can support surgeons in selecting the appropriate flaps to repair stage IV buttock pressure ulcers and achieve excellent reconstructive outcomes. This method makes the selection of flaps for pressure ulcer repair systematic, simple, and highly feasible and thus is worthy of promotion.

Perineal defect reconstruction after surgery for advanced or locally recurrent rectal cancer involving organ resection: Multiple flaps combined with lining repair.

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of multiple perineal perforator flaps in repairing deep perineal defects after pelvic exenteration for locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer. We investigated the outcomes of eight patients whose repairs involved a novel method of using an internal pudendal artery perforator (IPAP) flap combined with an inferior gluteal artery perforator (IGAP) flap. There were four male and four female patients with a mean age of 56 years (36-72 years). Bilateral IPAP flaps combined with bilateral IGAP flaps were used in five patients, unilateral IPAP flaps combined with bilateral IGAP flaps were used in two patients and bilateral IPAP flaps were used in one patient. There were no functional limitations in daily activities during the 6-month follow-up period. Our study showed that using multiple perineal perforator flaps combined with lining repair is feasible for repairing deep perineal defects in patients who have undergone rectal cancer surgery that includes pelvic exenteration.

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.

Extralevator 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. In 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. Out 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. Since 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.

Comparison of inferior gluteal artery perforator flaps versus vertical rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flaps in the reconstruction of perineal wounds

Achieving a healed perineal wound following chemoradiotherapy and abdominoperineal resection (APR) is challenging for surgeons and patients. Prior studies have shown trunk-based flaps, including vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) flaps, are superior to both primary closure and thigh-based flaps; however, there has been no direct comparison with gluteal fasciocutaneous flaps. This study evaluates postoperative complications after various methods of perineal flap closure of APR and pelvic exenteration defects. Retrospective review of patients who underwent APR or pelvic exenteration from April 2008 through September 2020 was analyzed for postoperative complications. Flap closure techniques, including VRAM, unilateral (IGAP), and bilateral (BIGAP) inferior gluteal artery perforator fasciocutaneous flaps, were compared. Of 116 patients included, the majority underwent fasciocutaneous (BIGAP/IGAP) flap reconstruction (n = 69, 59.6%), followed by VRAM (n = 47, 40.5%). There were no significant differences between group patient demographics, comorbidities, body mass index, or cancer stage. There were no significant differences between BIGAP/IGAP and VRAM groups in minor complications (57% versus 49%, p = 0.426) or major complications (45% versus 36%, p = 0.351), including major/minor perineal wounds. Prior studies have shown flap closure is preferable to primary closure after APR and neoadjuvant radiation but lack consensus on which flap offers superior postoperative morbidity. This study comparing outcomes of perineal flap closure showed no significant difference in postoperative complications. Fasciocutaneous flaps are a viable choice for the reconstruction of these challenging defects.

Sacroperineal Reconstruction With Inferior Gluteal Artery Perforator Flaps After Resection of Locally Advanced Primary and Recurrent Anorectal Malignancy.

Modern interdisciplinary concepts with involvement of various surgical specialties can considerably reduce perioperative morbidity after sacroperineal resection of locally advanced primary or recurrent anorectal malignancies. Resultant defects can represent a major challenge for reconstruction particularly with chemoradiotherapy. The aim is to assess the long-term outcomes of sacroperineal reconstruction using inferior gluteal artery perforator flaps.We performed a retrospective data analysis on 31 patients who were treated with inferior gluteal artery perforator flaps (n = 61) over the period 2009-2021. The demographic data, comorbidities, operative details, and outcomes with special focus on wound infection and dehiscence were recorded.The median age was 42 year (range, 25-82 years) with preponderance of males (n = 21). The follow-up period ranged from 6 to 80 months. Early minor complications included superficial wound dehiscence (3), which was managed conservatively, whereas the major (2) included deep wound collection and infection (1), which required surgical drainage, and perineal hernia, which required repair. All flaps survived completely.Inferior gluteal artery perforator flaps are safe, robust, and reliable with less donor side morbidity and positive impact on quality of life. It should be considered as a valuable tool in the reconstructive armamentarium of sacroperineal defects within a multidisciplinary setting.

A National Survey on Perineal Reconstruction Following Standard and Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision: Current Practices and Trends in the UK.

BackgroundChallenging perineal defects resulting from extralevator (ELAPE) and standard abdominoperineal excision (APE) have given rise to an emerging multidisciplinary approach between colorectal and plastic surgeons. At present, there is a relative paucity of evidence on best practice. This study sought to assess current national practice concerning perineal reconstruction following APE/ELAPE in the United Kingdom (UK) and to determine the factors involved in reconstruction choice.MethodologyAn anonymised survey was circulated to consultant plastic surgeons at all 48 UK centres performing perineal reconstruction following APE/ELAPE. Responses were collected between October 2021 and April 2022.ResultsComplete responses were received from 24 units nationally. All units had a dedicated APE/ELAPE service. Overall, 70% adopted a standardised reconstructive approach, the most common being the inferior gluteal artery perforator flap (n = 11). Significant variation was identified in the reconstructive technique. Similar differences were observed in the perceived importance of surgical factors guiding the reconstructive decision-making process, the top priorities being the size of the defect and previous radiotherapy.ConclusionsThe variability of responses suggests a lack of national consensus on optimal reconstruction following APE/ELAPE, despite the majority of centres employing a standardised approach to reconstruction. Our study highlights important surgical decision-making factors and provides valuable insight to aid in developing national collaborative evidence-based guidelines on best practice.

TH3.4 Perineal reconstruction following standard and extralevator abdominoperineal excision: results of a national practice questionnaire

Abstract Aims Challenging perineal defects resulting from extralevator (ELAPE) and standard abdominoperineal excision (APE) have resulted in a growing multidisciplinary approach between colorectal and plastic surgery colleagues. Currently there is a paucity of evidence on best practice in this emerging field. This study aims to define and describe current national practice within the United Kingdom (UK) in perineal reconstruction following APE/ELAPE. Methods A national practice questionnaire was designed using ‘Google Forms' and circulated via email to 41 units across the UK performing perineal reconstruction following APE/ELAPE. Results Complete responses were received from 23 units (response rate 56%), representing 12 regions across the UK. All units had a dedicated APE/ELAPE service. 70% had a standardised approach to reconstruction, with the Inferior Gluteal Artery Perforator (IGAP) flap being the most common approach (n = 11). Significant variation was observed in the reconstructive approach with regards to flap choice and routine use of pelvic acellular dermal matrix or mesh. Similar differences were observed in the perceived importance of various surgical factors that guide the reconstructive decision making process. Conclusions Our national practice questionnaire responses report nationally well established local networks between colorectal and plastic surgeons. However, the variation in results reflects a lack of national consensus on the optimal reconstructive method after APE/ELAPE. Our study highlight the need for the development of collaborative evidence based national guidance on best practice.

Does it Always have to be the Abdomen? Alternative Flaps in Autologous Breast Reconstruction

[English] Deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) or muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis muscle (ms-TRAM) flaps remain the gold standard for autologous reconstruction in post-mastectomy patients, although many women may not be candidates for abdominally based free tissue transfer. In this scenario, there are several other donor site options based from the thigh (transverse and diagonal upper gracilis flaps, profunda artery perforator flap, lateral thigh flap), trunk (lumbar artery perforator flap), and buttock (superior and inferior gluteal artery perforator flaps). This article will provide insight into the history, relevant anatomy, surgical technique and novel applications (neurotization) for alternative flaps in autologous breast reconstruction.

Analysis of clinical and patient-reported outcomes in post-ELAPE perineal reconstruction with IGAP flap – A 5-year review

Background: Extralevator abdominoperineal excisions (ELAPE) are now the accepted treatment option for low rectal cancers, which result in large perineal defects necessitating reconstruction. The aim of our study was to assess the clinical outcomes as well as the quality-of-life parameters (QOLP) following these reconstructions. Methods: A series of 27 patients who underwent ELAPE and immediate reconstruction with inferior gluteal artery perforator flaps (IGAP) between December 2013 to December 2018 were retrospectively analysed on patient demographics, disease and treatment, complications, and QOLP. Results: With a mean age of 71.6 years, all patients had low rectal cancers and underwent ELAPE (24 open, 3 lap-assisted) and immediate IGAP flap reconstruction. The follow-up period was 1 year. The overall perineal early minor complication rate was 25.9% and the early major complication rate of 14.8%. QOLP, such as tolerance to sit, perineal pain, perineal aesthetics, showed high patient satisfaction of 77.7%, 40.74%, and 66.6%, respectively at 1 year. The perineal hernia rate was 14.8% with all patients being female (p 0.0407; significant). Conclusion: IGAP flaps are a reliable option for reconstructing post-ELAPE defects with good patient satisfaction and outcomes.

Correlation of vascular change with TRPV1, TRPV4, and TRPA1 in a rat model of inferior gluteal artery perforator flap.

Maximum survival area after perforator flap elevation is mainly achieved through vasodilation and angiogenesis, and endothelial Ca2+ signals play a pivotal role in both of them. Transient receptor potential (TRP) channels modulate many endothelial cell functions via mediating the extracellular Ca2+ entry. This study aims to investigate the correlation of TRPV4, TRPV1, and TRPA1 with vascular change after the inferior gluteal artery perforator flap elevation. A total of 50 adult male SD rats were used in this study. Ten rats were used in the part one to assess the flap viability on postoperative day 7. Twenty rats were used in the part two to evaluate blood flow change after flap elevation. The correlation of vascular change with TRPV1, TRPV4, and TRPA1 protein changes was investigated in 20 rats in the part three. The mean flap survival area percentage was 55 ± 5.7%. Blood flow in the overall flap and Zone II after the flap elevation markedly increased from the postoperative day 3. The most marked change of the vasodilation occurred on Days 3 and 5 after flap elevation. The angiogenesis occurred on Day 5 after flap elevation and the microvessel density peaked also on Day 5. Moreover, TRPA1 expression showed a trend towards continuous reduction over time. The expression of TRPV1 and TRPV4 reached the peak value on Day 3. The endothelial NO synthase expression showed an increasing trend at first, followed by a reduction over time, while VEGF expression reached the peak value on Day 3. The vascular changes after flap elevation might be associated with the changes in TRPV4, TRPV1, and TRPA1.

Inferior gluteal artery perforator (IGAP) flap versus profunda artery perforator (PAP) flap as an alternative option for free autologous breast reconstruction

When patients are unsuitable for deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction, the inferior gluteal artery perforator (IGAP) flap has been used as an alternative option. However, the profunda artery perforator (PAP) flap is also gaining popularity as an alternative to the DIEP flap for several reasons. This retrospective cohort study compares baseline characteristics, peri- and post-operative outcomes following IGAP flap and PAP flap breast reconstructions after mastectomy for cancer. In a single center in the UK, from September 2008 through December 2016, 43 women underwent IGAP Flap(s) breast reconstruction and 51 received PAP flap(s) breast reconstructions. Statistical analysis was performed to compare baseline, peri-operative and post-operative variables between the two reconstruction methods. Perioperative complications requiring reoperation were experienced in women undergoing IGAP flap breast reconstructions only (21% versus 0%, p=0.001), principally due to the risk of total flap failure (12% versus 0%, p=0.01). Women undergoing IGAP flap breast reconstructions were at significantly higher odds of revision surgery (OR 17 [95% CI: 5.5-53], p<0.001), which was unchanged after adjusting for bilateral reconstructions (adjusted OR 18 [95% CI: 5.3-58], p<0.001). PAP flaps appear to be associated with significantly fewer complications and revision surgeries than IGAP flaps for breast reconstruction in women undergoing mastectomy for cancer and who are unsuitable for a DIEP flap breast reconstruction.

Immediate vaginal and perineal reconstruction after abdominoperineal excision using the Inferior Gluteal Artery Perforator Flap (V-IGAP)

The fasciocutaneous inferior gluteal artery perforator (IGAP) has been previously demonstrated to be a robust reconstructive choice after abdominoperineal excision (APE), with comparably low morbidity relative to other flaps. In patients who undergo concurrent vaginectomy, we demonstrate in this retrospective cohort study how IGAP modification allows simultaneous vaginal reconstruction with a favourable complication profile and long-term return to sexual activity. Oncological resection was completed with the patient prone. Unilateral or bilateral IGAP flaps may be used based on vaginal defect size and surgeon preference. In this study, important features of flap design, mobilisation and inset are presented, together with a retrospective cohort study of all cases who underwent vaginal reconstruction. Clinical outcomes were determined by the length of stay, early to late complications, and quality of life assessment including a return to sexual function. Over a 10-year period, 207 patients underwent abdominoperineal resection (APE) in our cross-centre study (86% subject to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy), with 22/84 female patients electing for vaginal reconstruction (19 partial, 3 total vaginectomies). Minor complications were observed in 6/22 cases, with two patients progressing to healing after-theatre debridement (major). The median follow-up time was 410 days. Quality of life questionnaires reported high patient satisfaction, with 70% of patients returning to sexual activity. For patients undergoing APE with concurrent vaginectomy, the IGAP flap can be used alone for both perineal dead space management and neovaginal reconstruction, negating the need for an alternative second flap and avoiding significant donor morbidity. This study shows excellent long-term clinical outcomes, including a return to sexual activity.

Breast Reconstruction for Cancer Patients in COVID-19 Pandemic.

Breast reconstruction is considered an integral aspect of breast cancer treatment and has a well-known positive effect on quality of life. Surgical treatment of cancer has been delayed until evaluation of local circumstances of coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19), adding to reasons why breast reconstruction procedures may have been delayed.1 In developing countries and middle-income economies, breast reconstruction has had a slow growth; even now, some countries do not cover breast reconstructive surgery, and we were just starting to see progress on the subject in recent years.2 We think breast reconstruction should not be abandoned as an important subject in benefits for cancer patients, even during this pandemic. At our institutions, we continue to offer breast reconstruction surgery, even during the COVID-19 pandemic (Fig. 1). To achieve this, we offer short-recovery surgical procedures to reduce patient exposure to coronavirus. We even try to favor a same-day surgery approach. This could mean direct-to-implant surgery when feasible or tissue expander placement when a second surgery would be required. We also look for options that reduce patient hospital stay, such as enhanced recovery after surgery protocols; combined anesthesia, with local blockades to reduce the effects of intravenous medications (e.g., nausea and vomiting) to favor shorter hospital stays; and oral intubation to contain aerosolization of virus for the protection of the surgical team.3 Immediate reconstruction will favor less exposure to coronavirus, avoiding at least one subsequent surgery and hospitalization.Fig. 1.: Proposed approach for breast reconstruction during the COVID-19 pandemic. DIEP, deep inferior epigastric perforator; SIEA, superficial inferior epigastric artery; SGAP, superior gluteal artery perforator; IGAP, inferior gluteal artery perforator; PAP, profunda artery perforator; TUG, transverse upper gracilis.There have been reports of thrombosis complications secondary to coronavirus infection.4 In this scenario, microsurgery procedures could be delayed until we have more and better knowledge, or at least new data and evidence of perioperative complications in elective microsurgery procedures. When the possibility of radiation was present, or after a shared decision-making approach, we opted for microsurgical free flap reconstruction, a tissue expander would be a better option to delay flap surgery at least 6 months, so we can offer a better safety profile. Offering immediate lymphatic reconstruction would offer higher benefits in these circumstances, to avoid new surgical procedures when possible, in addition to its established benefits.5 Nowadays, coronavirus infection considerations should be part of the shared decision-making process, and first consultation could be performed through virtual online options and three-dimensional models, as well as some follow-up consultations. Breast reconstruction should be considered in breast cancer patients even during the actual COVID-19 pandemic, and time will tell which is the best approach. For now, we should be proactive with caution. DISCLOSURE The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this article.

Pelvic Reconstruction following Abdominoperineal Resection and Pelvic Exenteration: Management Practices among Plastic and Colorectal Surgeons.

Pelvic reconstruction with a muscle flap significantly improves postoperative outcomes following abdominoperineal resection (APR). Despite it being the gold standard, significant surgeon-selection bias remains with respect to the necessity of pelvic obliteration, flap choice, and ostomy placement. The objective of the study was to characterize management practices among colorectal surgeons (CSs) and plastic surgeons (PSs). Specialty-specific surveys were distributed electronically to CSs and PSs via surgical societies. Surveys were designed to illustrate geographic and specialty-specific differences in management. Of 106 (54 CSs and 52 PSs) respondents (58% Canada, 21% Europe, 14% the United States, and 6% Asia/Africa), significant interdisciplinary differences in practices were observed. Most respondents indicated that multidisciplinary meetings were not performed (74% of CSs and 78% of PSs). For a nonradiated pelvic dead space with small perineal defect, 91% of CSs and 56% of PSs indicated that flap reconstruction was not required. For a radiated pelvic dead space with small perineal defect, only 54% of CSs and 6% of PSs indicated that there was no need for flap reconstruction. With respect to ostomy placement, 87% of CSs and 21% of PSs indicated that stoma placement through the rectus was superior. When two ostomies were required, most CSs preferred exteriorizing ostomies through bilateral recti and requesting thigh-based reconstruction. PSs favored the vertical rectus abdominis muscle (VRAM; 52%) over the gracilis (23%) and inferior gluteal artery perforator (IGAP; 23%) flaps. Among PSs, North Americans favor abdominally based flaps (VRAM 60%), while Europeans favor gluteal-based flaps (IGAP 78%). A lack of standardization continues to exist with respect to the reconstruction of pelvic defects following APR and pelvic exenteration. Geographic and interdisciplinary biases with respect to ostomy placement, flap choice, and role for pelvic obliteration continues to influence reconstructive practices. These cases should continue to be approached on a case by case basis, driven by pathology, presence of radiation, comorbidities, and the size of the pelvic and perineal defect.

Association of Clinical Complications of Chemotherapy and Patient-Reported Outcomes After Immediate Breast Reconstruction

Women undergoing immediate breast reconstruction often require chemotherapy. The effects of chemotherapy on reconstruction are not well described. To evaluate the association of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy with complications and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in immediate reconstruction. The Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium Study is a cohort study that prospectively assessed PROs and retrospectively evaluated complications in patients undergoing immediate implant-based or autologous reconstruction at 11 centers from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2017. Women 18 years or older undergoing immediate reconstruction after mastectomy with 2 years of follow-up were included. Patients were excluded if they had prophylactic mastectomy; delayed reconstruction; mixed-timing reconstruction; mixed reconstruction; a latissimus dorsi, superior gluteal artery perforator, or inferior gluteal artery perforator flap; or both neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy. Data were analyzed from May 1 to June 30, 2018. Complications and PROs (satisfaction with breast and physical, psychosocial, and sexual well-being) using the BREAST-Q questionnaire, a validated, condition-specific PRO measure. Baseline patient characteristics were collected. A total of 1881 women were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 49.9 [9.9] years). Of these, 1373 (73.0%) underwent implant-based procedures; 508 (27.0%), autologous reconstruction; 200 (10.6%), neoadjuvant chemotherapy; 668 (35.5%), adjuvant chemotherapy; and 1013 (53.9%), no chemotherapy. Patients without chemotherapy were significantly older (mean [SD] age, 51.6 [9.4] years; P < .001), and patients with chemotherapy were more likely to have received radiotherapy (108 of 200 [54.0%] for neoadjuvant chemotherapy and 321 of 668 [48.1%] for adjuvant chemotherapy; P < .001). Among the cohort undergoing implant-based reconstruction, the rates of any complication were significantly different, with higher rates seen for adjuvant (153 of 490 [31.2%]) and neoadjuvant (44 of 153 [28.8%]) chemotherapy compared with no chemotherapy (176 of 730 [24.1%]; P = .02). On multivariable analysis, these differences were not statistically significant. For autologous reconstruction, no significant differences in complications were observed. Controlling for clinical covariates, no significant differences were seen across chemotherapy groups for the BREAST-Q subscales except for sexual well-being in the implant cohort, in which adjuvant chemotherapy had significantly lower scores (β, -4.97 [95% CI, -8.68 to -1.27]; P = .009). In this cohort study, neither neoadjuvant nor adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with the likelihood of complications in patients undergoing implant-based or autologous reconstruction, and chemotherapy was not associated with patient satisfaction with reconstruction or psychosocial well-being. This information can help patients and clinicians make informed decisions about breast reconstruction in the setting of chemotherapy.

Unique hybrid double apposing flap in a Z-plasty technique to reconstruct major perianal defect resulting from chondyloma acuminatum resection - Case report.

Perianal area is anatomically challenging location to reconstruct after wide extensive local excision especially when preserving the anus anatomy anal sphincter continence is a requirement. That is the case in many benign locally aggressive conditions, due to high risk of suture line disruption, wound dehiscence, and wound infection. Many surgical options like primary closure, loco reginal flaps, distant or pedicled flaps, or even free flaps are available for such reconstruction. This is a report of a case of locally aggressive infection that was initially confused as complex perianal fistula, then sarcoma after the initial resection. Surprisingly, the permanent pathology confirmed the diagnosis of a giant condyloma acuminatum extending to the anal area, for which an extensive wide local resection with margin and temporary colostomy was done, this resulted in a large defect necessitating a reconstruction with hybrid double apposing Superior gluteal artery perforator flap (SGAP flap) and Inferior gluteal artery perforator flap (IGAP flap) in Z-plasty fashion. That healed completely with no local complication.

Alternative flaps in autologous breast reconstruction.

The gold standard for autologous reconstruction in the post-mastectomy patient remains the deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap, although many women may not be candidates for abdominally based free tissue transfer. In this scenario, there are several other donor site options based from the thigh (transverse and diagonal upper gracilis flaps, profunda artery perforator flap, lateral thigh flap) and trunk (lumbar artery perforator flap, superior and inferior gluteal artery perforator flaps). This study will review the history, relevant anatomy, surgical technique and outcomes for alternative flaps in autologous reconstruction. Additionally, preoperative imaging (CTA, MRA) and novel applications (stacking flaps, neurotization) in breast reconstructive microsurgery will be discussed.

Dual Reconstruction of Lumbar and Gluteal Defects with Freestyle Propeller Flap and Muscle Flap.

Background:The reconstruction of complex tissue defects in the lumbar and gluteal areas is a surgical challenge. The use of freestyle perforator-based flaps has gained popularity in the reconstruction of these defects due to several advantages: versatility, minimal donor-site morbidity, and tension-free closure. The present study reports the outcome of using a dual coverage of lumbar and gluteal defects with a gluteus maximus rotation flap as a deep layer and a freestyle propeller perforator-based flap as a superficial layer.Methods:A retrospective analysis of 18 patients who had a dual coverage of complex wounds of the lumbar and the gluteal areas was conducted. Different propeller flaps were used as superior gluteal artery perforator flap (SGAP), inferior gluteal artery perforator flap (IGAP), and posterior thigh perforator flap (PTP).Results:The study included 15 men and 3 women. The mean age was 26.3 years. The causes of the defects were: pressure ulcers in 14 patients and post-traumatic in 4 patients. A total of 28 freestyle flaps was used: 11 patients had 1 flap, 4 had 2 flaps, and 3 had 3 flaps. The mean postoperative follow-up was 12.2 months. The complications registered in the medical records were venous congestion in 2 patients, partial flap necrosis in 2 patients, and wound dehiscence in 1 patient.Conclusions:A freestyle propeller perforator-based flap combined with a gluteus maximus muscle flap is a solution that provides well-padding over bony prominence with a low complication rate. However, a long-term follow-up is needed to verify these results.

Versatility of Gluteal Arteries Perforator Flaps for Local Coverage Relative to Defect Size, Site, and Different Pathological Conditions

Background: Superior and inferior gluteal artery perforator flaps have evolved in the last few decades for both free and local tissue transfer because of having the advantages of being voluminous with a relatively inconspicuous donor site. Therefore focusing on the details of such a reconstructive procedure would be of importance when thinking of skin defect coverage in the lower back, gluteal, and upper thigh areas. Patients and methods: This study was done on 14 cases, 10 of them had defects due to pressure sores, and 4 cases due to other inflammatory and neoplastic conditions. All cases were done by the same surgical team with a follow up period ranging from 2 to 18 months. Results: Thirteen out fourteen flaps (92%) passed completely and uneventfully with no need for additional surgery throughout eighteen months of follow up. However, two cases developed wound dehiscence that required secondary sutures to one of them, two cases developed seroma, and one case developed partial flap loss which re-advanced by V-Y technique.Conclusion: The superior and inferior gluteal artery perforator flaps are versatile reconstructive coverage option for gluteal defects of different size, site and pathology. They are easy to perform; suitable for large defect reconstruction of the lower back, buttock, and upper thigh areas.

Alternative Perforator Options for Insufficient Profunda Artery Perforators: A Case and Anatomical Study.

The profunda artery perforator (PAP) flap can be an alternative to the deep inferior epigastric artery flap. However, in some cases, the PAP may not be adequate to perfuse the whole flap. In this study, we describe 3 cases in which an alternative perforator was used for PAP flap perfusion. In addition, we describe an anatomical study to explore the perforasome of the PAP and alternative perforators. Three cases are described in which an alternative perforator was used to successfully perfuse the pap flap. For the anatomical study, 7 PAP flaps were raised from cadavers. Ink was injected in the PAP, the gracilis perforator (GP) and the descending branch of the inferior gluteal artery perforator (DBIGA). Then, perfused area of the flap by each perforator was calculated. The 3 patients with alternative perforators recovered without complications, in addition, no signs of fat necrosis were observed. Concerning the anatomical study, mean perfusion area of the PAP pedicle was 204 ± 90 cm (range, 141-364 cm). The GP and the DBIGA had a perfusion area of 182 ± 42 cm (range, 123-235 cm) and 157 ± 22 cm (range, 136-192), respectively. Although the PAP flap has considerable benefits over the more traditional inferior gluteal artery perforator and transverse upper gracilis flaps, a plastic surgeon might encounter a PAP flap perforator that is not deemed viable for flap perfusion. In these cases, the GP and DBIGA may be suitable "escape" alternatives to complete the reconstruction.