Abdominoplasty and Thoraco-Epigastric Flaps for Large Anterior Trunk Defects after Dermatofibrosarcoma Protuberans Wide Resection: Two Illustrative Cases

INTRODUCTION: Excision of large dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans in the anterior aspect of the trunk often results in large surgical defects that frequently dictate the need for microsurgical reconstruction. However, this option is not always available. PRESENTATION OF CASE: The authors describe two patients with very large anterior trunk dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans: one in the epigastric region and the other in the hypogastric region. In the patient with the hypogastric tumor, a classical abdominoplasty flap associated with umbilical transposition was used to cover the skin defect after muscle and fascial plication, and placement of a polypropylene mesh. In the patient with the epigastric tumor, a synthetic mesh was also placed, and the skin and subcutaneous defect was reconstructed with a reverse abdominoplasty flap and two thoraco-epigastric flaps. In both cases, complete closure was possible without immediate or late complications. DISCUSSION: The local options described in this paper present several potential advantages compared to microsurgical reconstruction, namely they are easier and faster to perform and teach; they provide a good skin color and texture match; they are not associated with distant donor site morbidity; follow-up is usually less cumbersome; the post-operative hospital stay tends to be shorter; they are less costly; they are less prone to complete failure. CONCLUSION: The authors believe that these two patients clearly show that local flaps, although frequently neglected, continue to be valid options for reconstructing large anterior trunk defects, even in the current era of microsurgery enthusiasm.

Laparoscopic Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy Versus Vaginal Hysterectomy

Introduction: Hysterectomy is the commonest gynecologic operation, performed for malignant and benign conditions. There are many approaches to hysterectomy for benign disease. Studies comparing the techniques have showed that vaginal hysterectomy has benefits in terms of reduced hospital stay, faster recovery and less operating time. Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare the surgical and immediate postoperative outcomes of Laparoscopic Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy (LAVH) with those of Vaginal Hysterectomy (VH). Methods: Retrospective descriptive study, comparing two groups of women who underwent LAVH or VH in our department during a 24 months period, from January 2009 to December 2010. The two groups were compared regarding age, vaginal deliveries, previous abdominal surgery, uterine and adnexal pathology, intra-operative and post-operative complications, uterus weight, blood loss and number of days until discharge. Results: In our study 42 LAVH and 99 VH were included, with a patient mean age of 47 and 59, respectively. The most frequent indication for hysterectomy was fibroids (80%) for LAVH and POP(58.6%) for HV. In LAVH group 47.6% of patients had previous abdominal surgery, vs 28.2% in VH group. The medium operative time was 167 minutes for LAVH vs 99 minutes for HV. The intra-operative complications were one case (2%) of accidental incision of rectum in LAVH, and one bladder incision in the VH (1%). There were 3 conversions to laparotomy for difficult technique (7%) in LAVH group. There were no significant post-operative complications for LAVH. In VH group there were 2 cases of haemoperitoneum (2%) and 1 case requiring blood transfusion (1%). The mean time for discharge was 4.23 days for LAVH and 4.46 days for VH. Conclusions: In our study, the main advantage for VH was the reduced operative time. In terms of time to discharge there was no difference between the 2 groups. The main intra-operative complication of LAVH was the risk of conversion to laparotomy, but post-operatively this procedure had fewer complications than VH. In conclusion, LAVH is a safe option for women requiring hysterectomy in cases where VH is anticipated to be technically difficult.