Profile
International Journal of Gynecology & Clinical Practices Volume 4 (2017), Article ID 4:IJGCP-132, 6 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.15344/2394-4986/2017/132
Case Report
Specail Issue: Gynecology & Surgical Oncology
A New Proposal of Pelvic Floor Reconstruction Using Biosynthetic Mesh after Abdominoperineal Radical Surgery in Gynecological Cancer: A Case Series

Begoña Díaz de-la-Noval1*, Ignacio Zapardiel1, Shirin Zarbaskhsh Etemandi2, Alicia Hernández Gutiérrez1, Javier De- Santiago García1 and Maria Dolores Diestro Tejeda1

1Gynecologic Oncology Unit; Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics. La Paz University Hospital, IdiPAZ, Madrid, Spain
2Reconstructive Surgery Unit; Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery. La Paz University Hospital, IdiPAZ, Madrid, Spain
Dr. Begoña Díaz de-la-Noval, Gynecologic Oncology Unit; Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics. La Paz University Hospital, IdiPAZ, Madrid, Spain, Tel: +34.616306566; E-mail: begodelanoval@gmail.com
19 July 2017; 07 October 2017; 09 October 2017
de-la-Noval BD, Zapardiel I, Etemandi SZ, Gutiérrez AH, García JD, et al. (2017) A New Proposal of Pelvic Floor Reconstruction Using Biosynthetic Mesh after Abdominoperineal Radical Surgery in Gynecological Cancer: A Case Series. Int J Gynecol Clin Pract 4: 132. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15344/2394-4986/2017/132

Abstract

Background: The purpose was to analyze the casuistry of pelvic floor reconstruction (PFR) with biological mesh (BM) after exenterative radical surgery.
Methods: Six patients treated with radical surgery and reconstruction of the perineal defect, conducted with a BM, since April 2011 to June 2016, are described.
Results: A total of 5 pelvic exenterations and an anterior pelvic supralevator exenteration were performed, 2 cases included a radical vulvectomy. In 5 patients the BM was placed intraoperatively, combined with myocutaneous bilateral gracilis flap or omentoplasty. Another case required deferred mesh placement due to evisceration through the perineal hole.
Mean surgical time was 510 minutes and a median hospitalization of 26 days. Complications were mainly due to infections and abdominal wall dehiscence. There were no pelvic organ prolapses and no mesh had to be removed. The mean follow-up was 8.5 months; halfof the patients are free of disease.
Conclusion: Though limited evidence, BM can be a safe and feasible option in cases of radical surgical gynecological procedures with a wide loss of soft tissue. More data is required.