腹外展手术后会阴重建的最佳技术:系统回顾

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Hamish Thomson , Tharenya Uthayakumar , Anirban Mandal
{"title":"腹外展手术后会阴重建的最佳技术:系统回顾","authors":"Hamish Thomson ,&nbsp;Tharenya Uthayakumar ,&nbsp;Anirban Mandal","doi":"10.1016/j.bjps.2025.05.025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The optimal method of perineal reconstruction following extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) is a debated topic among plastic surgeons, with current options including direct closure, biological mesh, flaps or a combination. This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines to evaluate the available medical literature on the optimal modality of perineal reconstruction. We hypothesised that the use of flaps is the superior method, with complex cases requiring the use of an additional flap or incorporation of a supporting biological mesh. The specific outcomes of each reconstruction modality assessed included the a) length of hospital stay, b) perineal complications, c) hernias, d) recurrence, e) mortality and f) functional outcomes. A comprehensive search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases yielded 1081 articles. Following independent screening using a PICOT framework-guided inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a subsequent quality assessment, 21 papers were incorporated into the review for qualitative analysis; Among the 21 papers, 15 were retrospective cohort studies, 4 were prospective cohort studies, 1 was an observational cohort study and 1 was a randomised control trial. The literature suggests that when used exclusively, flaps and biological meshes achieved a higher percentage of fully healed perineum without complications compared to flap–mesh or flap–flap hybrids. However, these findings are inconclusive and undermined by several critical limitations. Further long-term randomised control trials are required to determine the superior method for perineal reconstruction.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50084,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery","volume":"106 ","pages":"Pages 223-233"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Optimal technique of perineal reconstruction following extralevator abdominoperineal excision: A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Hamish Thomson ,&nbsp;Tharenya Uthayakumar ,&nbsp;Anirban Mandal\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.bjps.2025.05.025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>The optimal method of perineal reconstruction following extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) is a debated topic among plastic surgeons, with current options including direct closure, biological mesh, flaps or a combination. This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines to evaluate the available medical literature on the optimal modality of perineal reconstruction. We hypothesised that the use of flaps is the superior method, with complex cases requiring the use of an additional flap or incorporation of a supporting biological mesh. The specific outcomes of each reconstruction modality assessed included the a) length of hospital stay, b) perineal complications, c) hernias, d) recurrence, e) mortality and f) functional outcomes. A comprehensive search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases yielded 1081 articles. Following independent screening using a PICOT framework-guided inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a subsequent quality assessment, 21 papers were incorporated into the review for qualitative analysis; Among the 21 papers, 15 were retrospective cohort studies, 4 were prospective cohort studies, 1 was an observational cohort study and 1 was a randomised control trial. The literature suggests that when used exclusively, flaps and biological meshes achieved a higher percentage of fully healed perineum without complications compared to flap–mesh or flap–flap hybrids. However, these findings are inconclusive and undermined by several critical limitations. Further long-term randomised control trials are required to determine the superior method for perineal reconstruction.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50084,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery\",\"volume\":\"106 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 223-233\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1748681525003328\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1748681525003328","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

腹外展手术(ELAPE)后会阴重建的最佳方法在整形外科医生中是一个有争议的话题,目前的选择包括直接闭合,生物网,皮瓣或组合。本系统综述是根据PRISMA指南进行的,以评估现有的关于会阴重建最佳方式的医学文献。我们假设使用皮瓣是优越的方法,复杂的情况下需要使用额外的皮瓣或支持生物网的结合。评估的每种重建方式的具体结果包括a)住院时间,b)会阴并发症,c)疝气,d)复发,e)死亡率和f)功能结果。对MEDLINE和EMBASE数据库的全面搜索产生了1081篇文章。在使用PICOT框架指导的纳入和排除标准进行独立筛选以及随后的质量评估后,21篇论文被纳入本综述进行定性分析;21篇论文中,15篇为回顾性队列研究,4篇为前瞻性队列研究,1篇为观察性队列研究,1篇为随机对照试验。文献表明,当完全使用皮瓣和生物网时,与皮瓣网或皮瓣-皮瓣杂交相比,会阴部完全愈合的百分比更高,没有并发症。然而,这些发现是不确定的,并受到几个关键限制的影响。需要进一步的长期随机对照试验来确定会阴重建的最佳方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Optimal technique of perineal reconstruction following extralevator abdominoperineal excision: A systematic review
The optimal method of perineal reconstruction following extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) is a debated topic among plastic surgeons, with current options including direct closure, biological mesh, flaps or a combination. This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines to evaluate the available medical literature on the optimal modality of perineal reconstruction. We hypothesised that the use of flaps is the superior method, with complex cases requiring the use of an additional flap or incorporation of a supporting biological mesh. The specific outcomes of each reconstruction modality assessed included the a) length of hospital stay, b) perineal complications, c) hernias, d) recurrence, e) mortality and f) functional outcomes. A comprehensive search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases yielded 1081 articles. Following independent screening using a PICOT framework-guided inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a subsequent quality assessment, 21 papers were incorporated into the review for qualitative analysis; Among the 21 papers, 15 were retrospective cohort studies, 4 were prospective cohort studies, 1 was an observational cohort study and 1 was a randomised control trial. The literature suggests that when used exclusively, flaps and biological meshes achieved a higher percentage of fully healed perineum without complications compared to flap–mesh or flap–flap hybrids. However, these findings are inconclusive and undermined by several critical limitations. Further long-term randomised control trials are required to determine the superior method for perineal reconstruction.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
11.10%
发文量
578
审稿时长
3.5 months
期刊介绍: JPRAS An International Journal of Surgical Reconstruction is one of the world''s leading international journals, covering all the reconstructive and aesthetic aspects of plastic surgery. The journal presents the latest surgical procedures with audit and outcome studies of new and established techniques in plastic surgery including: cleft lip and palate and other heads and neck surgery, hand surgery, lower limb trauma, burns, skin cancer, breast surgery and aesthetic surgery.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信