- Research article
- Open Access
- Open Peer Review
Primary flap reconstruction of tissue defects after sarcoma surgery enables curative treatment with acceptable functional results: a 7-year review
© López et al. 2015
- Received: 4 June 2014
- Accepted: 29 May 2015
- Published: 9 June 2015
Sarcomas, a heterogeneous group of tumors, are challenging to treat and require multidisciplinary cooperation and planning. We analyzed the efficacy of flap reconstruction in patients with bone and soft tissue sarcoma.
Patient charts and operative records were retrospectively reviewed from January 2006 through October 2013 to identify sarcoma patient characteristics, postoperative complications, revisions, recurrences, and survival. Pedicled and/or free flap reconstruction was performed in 109 patients. Flap selection was based on defect size, and exposure of anatomically critical structures or major orthopedic implants.
Of 109 patients, 71 (65.1 %) were men, and mean age was 56.4 years. Tumors most frequently located in a lower extremity (38.7 %). Primary sarcomas comprised 79.2 % and recurrences occurred in 18.9 %. Wide resection was performed for 65.7 %, and there were 10 planned amputations combined with flap reconstruction. A total of 111 tumors received 128 flaps: 76 pedicled flaps, 42 free flaps, and 5 combined (10 total) pedicled + free-flaps. The success rate was 94 % for the pedicled flap group, 97 % for the free-flap group, and 100 % for the pedicle + free-flap group. Of 35 patients, 5 developed deep prosthetic infections. Only one amputation due to disease progression was performed. Satisfactory functional outcome was achieved in 69 %. Survival rate during a mean (standard deviation) 3(2) year follow-up was 83.5 %.
Primary flap reconstruction after sarcoma surgery satisfies oncologic goals. Large tumors in difficult areas can be removed and complete tumor resection achieved. Our findings indicate a high survival rate after sarcoma surgery utilizing flap reconstruction and a low recurrence rate.
- Defect size
- Flap reconstruction
Soft tissue and bone sarcomas have characteristic patterns of biologic behavior on which staging and treatment protocols are based . The international incidence rate ranges from 1.8-5 per 100,000 persons/year, with 11,410 new cases in 2013 . The Finnish Cancer Registry reported an incidence of 0.7 and 1.4/100.000 persons/year for bone and soft tissue cancers .
Advances in the multimodal treatment approach of sarcoma patients have drastically improved survival and quality of life [4, 5]. Combined wide excision and adjuvant therapy remains the standard for local control without increased recurrence or mortality . Nonetheless, recent studies demonstrated that narrower margins yield similar outcomes and complete tumor resection is the main aim for oncology surgeons [7–9].
Significant tissue defects may result from sarcoma excisions, with exposure of tendons, bones, joints, vessels, and prosthetic material, making substantial coverage crucial. Sarcoma patients require reconstructive procedures that provide quality vascularized tissue with a brief healing period, thus enabling adjuvant therapy.
The benefits of primary tissue reconstruction for sarcoma patients, the most common postoperative complications, and the revision percentages remain unclear. The aim of this retrospective study was to analyze the results and benefits of primary tissue reconstruction in our multidisciplinary Sarcoma Unit.
The Tampere University Hospital Sarcoma Unit registry identified a total of 359 sarcoma patients from January 2006 through October 2013. This research was approved by the Tampere University Hospital Research Committee and a patient photography release consent form was obtained.
Flap reconstruction was performed in 109 of these patients. Patient charts were reviewed to determine demographic characteristics, comorbidities, pertinent laboratory results, and body mass index (BMI). Tumor information (location, pathology, and grade) was also collected. Surgical data included: resection type, hardware used, and defect size. Flap choice included tumor/defect size (defined through pathology specimen as length x width), tissue type, function, and donor site availability, among others. There were three reconstructive options: pedicled flaps, free flaps, and pedicled + free (as two separate) flaps. Pedicled flaps in our study were defined as true perforator flaps, such as propeller flaps, and local broad-based fasciocutaneous or muscle flaps. Using a two-team approach, the operating time included tumor resection, fixation, and reconstruction. Outcome analyses of postoperative complications and revisions were calculated. Early complications were defined as those occurring within the first 30 postoperative days. Postoperative pathologic margins were studied, as well as patient functionality. Finally, disease recurrence, progression, and patient survival were analyzed.
Data are presented as the mean (standard deviation) unless otherwise noted. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS® version 22. For continuous variables, p values were calculated using the Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test, and for the categorical variables, Fisher’s exact test was used. Box plots were applied for defect size analysis, and the Kaplan-Meier test was used to analyze patient survival with Cox regression for individual variable analysis.
38 (34.8 %)
71 (65.1 %)
14 (12.8 %)
27 (24.7 %)
14 (12.8 %)
38 (34.8 %)
-GFR (mL/min/1.73 m2)
Tumor localization and presentation
-Head and neck
8 (7,20 %)
23 (20,72 %)
27 (24,32 %)
10 (9,00 %)
43 (38,73 %)
88 (79.2 %)
21 (18.9 %)
2 (1.8 %)
2 (1.8 %)
3 (2.7 %)
3 (2.7 %)
6 (5.4 %)
7 (6.3 %)
9 (8.1 %)
12 (10.8 %)
12 (10.8 %)
17 (15.3 %)
19 (17.1 %)
21 (18.9 %)
111 (100 %)
Reconstruction with metal implants was used for 29 % of the patients (endoprostheses, plates, and screws or spinal instruments) and surgical meshes for 18 % of the patients. Endoprosthetics were used in 14 patients. Autologous non-vascularized bone was used at the beginning of the study in three patients, but was replaced with vascularized bone due its clear benefits. The risk for infection was significant in patients who underwent endoprosthetic placement and bone grafting. In our study, muscular flaps were the preferred choice for prosthetic material coverage as they serve as an ideal vascular tissue barrier. In our experience, coverage with highly vascular tissue such as muscle is a safe method of protecting against infection and fistula formation. Additionally, muscular tissue provides volume to fill the dead space [14–17].
Flap characteristics: flap type
22 (27.1 %)
29 (61.7 %)
2 (2.4 %)
4 (8.5 %)
ALT + vastus lateralis
2 (2.4 %)
4 (8.5 %)
5 (6.1 %)
1 (2.1 %)
3 (3.7 %)
2 (4.2 %)
1 (1.2 %)
3 (6.3 %)
Rectus abdominis TRAM/VRAM
3 (3.7 %)
1 (2.1 %)
1 (2.1 %)
2 (4.2 %)
9 (11.1 %)
14 (17.2 %)
11 (13.5 %)
1 (1.2 %)
1 (1.2 %)
Tensor fascia lata
2 (2.4 %)
1 (1.2 %)
1 (1.2 %)
1 (1.2 %)
2 (2.4 %)
81 (100 %)
47 (100 %)
The global mean operating time was 5.6(2.4) hr; 4.7(2.4) hr for the pedicled flap group (range 1–10.5), 6.6(1.8) hr for the free-flap group (2.5-11), and 7.7(0.8) hr for the pedicled + free flap group. Surgical time was greater in patients requiring two flaps (p = 0.001). Operative time was significantly lower for pedicled reconstructions (p = <0.0001 compared with free-flap reconstruction). In 11 patients, delayed reconstruction was performed due to patient condition and/or prolonged tumor resection.
The most frequent early complications encountered were: minor necrosis (30 %), delayed wound healing (17 %), infection (15 %), hematoma (10 %), seroma (8 %), and total flap loss (4 %). The incidence of pedicled and free-flap complications was not significantly different. The influence of comorbidities on early complications was not significant, except in total flap loss where cardiac disease appeared to have a significant role (p = 0.012). From a total of 35 patients who underwent prosthetic material placement, 5 suffered deep infections, and 3 required implant removal. One mesh required removal as a result of deep infection.
Wound healing complications were observed following neoadjuvant chemo- or radiotherapy. Of 14 patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 6 reported wound complications such as infections and necrosis that delayed wound healing and required revision surgery (p = 0.10). Both patients receiving preoperative radiotherapy presented with complications of recurrent hematoma/seroma formation and infection that required revision surgery (p = 0.05).
The revision rates were as follows: 17 % for the pedicled, 13 % for the free, and 4 % for the pedicled + free-flap group. Wound revision for lavage and closure was significantly greater for the pedicled + free-flap group (p = 0.033). In the free-flap group, four patients required revisions due to vascular compromise (two required vein and two arterial and venous re-anastomosis); three with reported flap survival. The overall revision differences between the study groups and the number of revisions per patient were not significant (p = 0.086 and 0.116).
There was one total flap loss in the free-flap group (97 % survival); 4 total flap losses for the pedicled flap group (94 % survival), and no flap loss in the pedicled + free flap group. The pedicled + free-flap group had significantly more hematomas and wound healing problems than the other groups. The reason for this was the larger defect size in patients receiving both a pedicled and a free-flap reconstruction. When total flap loss was encountered, reconstruction was performed with new free flaps in two cases, with pedicled flaps in two cases, and with negative wound pressure therapy and multiple revision surgery followed by skin grafting in one case. The latter patient required fat grafting for volume replacement. Systemic complications were distributed equally among the groups and included pulmonary, cardiac, thromboembolic events, sepsis, and renal failure.
The value of plastic surgery reconstruction was demonstrated in our series. Twelve patients would have been considered inoperable if flap reconstruction was not available. Similarly, without flap reconstruction, 19 patients would have been considered candidates for amputation. Distal limb tumors, tumors resected after whoops procedures, and axial tumors that required flap coverage due to defect size and vital organ exposure benefited the most from reconstructive surgery.
The goal of primary tissue reconstruction after sarcoma resection is to reconstruct the excised tissue and secure wound healing by filling the dead space. The possibility of primary tissue reconstruction allows the orthopedic oncologist to proceed freely with complete tumor ablation without worrying about wound closure. The SSG guidelines have gradually shifted to accept narrower margins. The patients studied here, however, were operated on at a time when the aim was to achieve wide margin of at least 10 mm of nonfascial tissue. This aim led to extensive resections, as reported here. Although wide margins remain the standard resection for sarcomas, narrower margins have demonstrated comparable outcomes based on longer follow-up and survival numbers [18, 19].
Marginal resections provide similar survival rates compared with wide resections [8, 9, 13, 18, 19]. Intralesional resection yields the highest numbers of recurrence at surgical margins . In our study, the greatest percentage of recurrence was detected in patients undergoing intralesional resections, followed by wide, marginal, and radical, but the differences were not statistically significant. We attribute this result to the remarkably low number of intralesional resections performed compared with the wide or marginal resections.
Although neoadjuvant chemo- and radiotherapy negatively affect wound healing, the effects were not significant. The very low number of patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy may have influenced this result. STS, the most common type of sarcoma, is resistant to chemotherapy and therefore not commonly used in these patients. Patients with STS are usually older than those with bone sarcoma and chemotherapeutic agents for sarcoma treatment are highly toxic. Therefore, the benefits of chemotherapy are lower than the possible toxic complication rates in this group.
Adequate wound healing is mandatory for postoperative adjuvant therapy [20–22]. In the past, large tumor resections and reconstructions were avoided due to the detrimental effects of adjuvant therapy, patient morbidity, and high recurrence rate. Nonetheless, tissue transfer from unirradiated sites can overcome the detrimental effects of adjuvant therapy on wound healing [20–22]. Sarcoma reconstruction is associated with a high proportion of postoperative complications, likely due to the prolonged surgical time as well as extended postoperative bed rest and immunosuppressive therapies. In the present study, we found that creating two flaps significantly prolonged the operating time. The operating time was significantly shorter for pedicled flaps, compared with free flaps. The main reason for this result, however, is that free-flap surgical time included local options, such as transposition flaps. Cordeiro described major (12 %) and minor complications (7 %) following free-flap reconstruction, reporting flap success in 96 % of cases . In our study, the number of early complications was 17 %, but only 20 % of the patients required revision surgery. Pedicled flaps are commonly considered more reliable and successful for oncologic cases, but we found that the free-flap success rate was equivalent. Our current preference for the use of free flaps in certain cases is due to the advantage of freedom of flap positioning, incorporating healthy vascularized tissue, avoiding kinking or stretching of the vascular pedicle, and quick healing periods. Adding volume and a protective barrier to oncologic defects using reconstructive flaps provides greater tolerance for subsequent adjuvant therapy [23–28].
Recurrences are considered high after flap reconstruction in the setting of advanced and high-grade sarcomas . Initial presentation with recurrent disease and tumor size are important risk factors for subsequent recurrence [20–22, 24, 29, 30]. In our series, planned margins were achieved in over 94 % of the cases, even for large tumors. Overall patient survival was 83.5 % for the study period, which is higher than that reported previously, ranging from 50 % to 80 % [1–3, 31–34]. Sarcoma recurrence is reported to be ~25 % to 60 % [1, 2, 31–34]. In our study, recurrence was 19 %, slightly lower than that in previous reports. Flap reconstruction allows for complete tumor excision, and thus results in a good survival rate.
Proper flap selection is crucial in sarcoma defect reconstruction [29, 30, 35]. In general, free and pedicled flaps were equally effective for defect coverage. The limitations of the current study are the retrospective nature of the research and the heterogeneity of the study population. Additionally, the condition of each patient was unique, including tumor type and indication, making their reconstruction almost impossible to compare.
Primary flap reconstructions after sarcoma surgery are often performed in our center for various reasons. The possibility for soft tissue and bone reconstruction allows the oncologic surgeon to perform a complete tumor excision with adequate margins . Primary flap reconstruction also helps to protect orthopedic megaimplants and avoid deep infection. Additionally, an important aim is to maintain maximum patient function without compromising surgical oncologic principles. Enabling a patient to walk and return to daily activities of living after sarcoma resection vastly improves the patient’s quality of life. The availability of plastic surgery reconstructions enables surgery to be performed in some patients with complex cases, and can aid in preventing amputations in some cases.
Performing primary flap reconstruction contributes to satisfy the primary goal of sarcoma resection. The choice of the reconstructive method applied is profoundly individualized. Therapeutic planning for sarcoma patients should be accomplished by a multidisciplinary team involving oncologists, radiologists, pathologists, orthopedic oncologists, arthroplastic and spine surgeons, and reconstructive plastic surgeons.
We thank Mika Helminen who contributed substantially to the data analysis and interpretation. Source of funding for authors or manuscript preparation: none.
- American Joint Committee on Cancer. Soft tissues. In: Fleming ID, Cooper JS, Henson DE, editors. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 2010. p. 149–56.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- National Cancer Institute 2013. Available at http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/adult-soft-tissue-sarcoma/HealthProfessional/page1
- Finnish Cancer Registry 2011. Available at http://www.cancer.fi/syoparekisteri/en/statistics/cancer-statistics/koko-maa/
- Fisher C. Soft tissue sarcomas: Diagnosis, classification and prognostic factors. Br J Plast Surg. 1996;49:27–36.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Enneking WF, Spanier SS, Goodman MA. A system for the surgical staging of musculoskeletal sarcoma. Clin Orthop. 1980;153:106–20.Google Scholar
- Malawer M, Sugarbaker PH. Musculoskeletal Cancer Surgery. Treatment of Sarcomas and Allied Diseases. Netherlands: Springer; 2005. p. 3.Google Scholar
- Angervall L, Lindblom LG. Principles of pathologic anatomic diagnosis and classification of soft tissue sarcomas. Clin Orthop. 1993;289:9–18.Google Scholar
- Trovik CS, Bauer HC, Alvegard TA. Surgical margins, local recurrence and metastasis in soft tissue sarcomas: 559 surgically treated patients from the Scandinavian sarcoma group register. Eur J Cancer. 2000;36:710–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Clement S. Trovik, Sigmund Skjeldal, Henrik Bauer, Anders Rydholm, and Nina Jebsen. Reliability of Margin Assessment after Surgery for Extremity Soft Tissue Sarcoma: The SSG Experience, Sarcoma, vol. 2012, Article ID 290698, 5 pages. doi:10.1155/2012/290698.Google Scholar
- Zook EG, Russell RC, Asaadi M. A comparative study of free and pedicle flaps for lower extremity wounds. Ann Plast Surg. 1977;59:492–9.Google Scholar
- Serafin D, Geordiage NG, Smith DH. Comparison of free flaps with pedicle flaps for lower extremity wounds. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;102:711–21.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cordeiro PG, Neves RI, Hidalgo DA. The role of free tissue transfer following oncologic resection in the lower extremity. Ann Plast Surg. 1994;33:9–16.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- O’Donnell PW, Griffin AM, Eward WC, Sternheim A, Catton CN, Chung PW, et al. The effect of the setting of a positive surgical margin in soft tissue sarcoma. Cancer. 2014;120:2866–75.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sukru Y, Chih-Hung L, Yu-Te L, Ali Engin U, Wei F-CMD. Outcome Comparison between Free Muscle and Free Fasciocutaneous Flaps for Reconstruction of Distal Third and Ankle Traumatic Open Tibial Fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117(7):2468–75.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Shibata D, Hyland W, Busse P, Kim K, Sentovich SM, Steele G, et al. Immediate Reconstruction of the Perineal Wound With Gracilis Muscle Flaps Following Abdominoperineal Resection and Intraoperative Radiation Therapy for Recurrent Carcinoma of the Rectum. Ann Surg Oncol. 1999;6(1):33–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hallock GG. Utility of Both Muscle and Fascia Flaps in Severe Lower Extremity Trauma. J Trauma. 2000;48(5):913–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Arnold PG, Yugueros P, Hanssen A. Muscle Flaps in Osteomyelitis of the Lower Extremity: A 20-Year Account. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;104(1):107–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Liu CY, Yen CC, Chen WM. Soft tissue sarcoma of extremities: the prognostic significance of adequate surgical margins in primary operation and reoperation after recurrence. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:2102–11.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- King DM, Hackbarth DA, Kirkpatrick A. Extremity soft tissue sarcoma resections: how wide do you need to be? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:692–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sawamura C, Springfield DS, Marcus KJ, Perez-Atayde AR, Gerhardt MC. Factors predicting local recurrence, metastasis and survival in pediatric soft tissue sarcoma in extremities. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:3019–27.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Kane JM, Gibbs JF, McGrath BE, Loree TR, Kraybill WG. Large, deep high-grade extremity sarcomas: When is a myocutaneous flap reconstruction necessary? Surg Oncol. 1999;8:205.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chao AH, Chang DW, Shuaib SW, Hanasono MM. The Effect of Neoadjuvant versus Adjuvant Irradiation on Microvascular Free Flap Reconstruction in Sarcoma Patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129:675–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kim JY, Subramanian V, Yousef A, Rogers BA, Robb GL, Chang DW. Upper Extremity Limb Salvage with Microvascular Reconstruction in Patients with Advanced Sarcoma. Plas Reconstr Surg. 2004;114:400–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Pisters PW, Leung DH, Woodruff J, Shi W, Brennan MF. Analysis of prognostic factors in 1,041 patients with localized soft tissue sarcomas of the extremities. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:1679.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Brennan MF. The surgeon as a leader in cancer care: Lessons learned from the study of soft tissue sarcomas. J Am Coll Surg. 1996;182:520.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Spark JI, Charalabidis P, Laws P, Seben R, Clayer M. Vascular reconstruction in lower limb musculoskeletal tumours. ANZ J Surg. 2009;79:619–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lohman RF, Nabawi AS, Reece GP, Pollock RE, Evans GR. Soft tissue sarcoma of the upper extremity: A 5-year experience at two institutions emphasizing the role of soft tissue flap reconstruction. Cancer. 2002;94:2256.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Momeni A, Kalash Z, Stark GB, Bannasch H. The use of the anterolateral thigh flap for microsurgical reconstruction of distal extremities after oncosurgical resection of soft-tissue sarcomas. J Plas, Reconst Aesth Surg. 2011;64:643–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Malawer MM, Kellar-Graney K. Soft Tissue Reconstruction After Limb-Sparing Surgery for Tumors of the Upper and Lower Extremities. Oper Tech Orthop. 2005;14:276–87.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Winkelmann WW. Type-B-IIIa hip rotationplasty: an alternative operation for the treatment of malignant tumors of the femur in early childhood. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82:814–28.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lehnardt M, Kuhnen C, Drücke D, Homann HH, Joneidi Jafari H, Steinau HU. Liposarcoma of the extremities: recent developments in surgical therapy/analysis of 167 patients. Chirurg. 2004;75(12):1182–90.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lehnardt M, Hirche A, Daigeler O, Goertz A, Ring TH, Drücke D, et al. Weichgewebssarkome der oberen Extremität. Chirurg. 2012;83(2):143.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Steinau HU, Daigeler A, Langer S, et al. Limb Salvage in Malignant Tumors. Seminars in Plastic Surgery. 2010;24(1):18–33.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Lehnhardt M, Daigeler A, Homann HH, Schwaiberger V, Goertz O, Kuhnen C, et al. MFH revisited: outcome after surgical treatment of undifferentiated pleomorphic or not otherwise specified (NOS) sarcomas of the extremities -- an analysis of 140 patients. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2009;394(2):313–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Heller L, Levin LS. Lower extremity microsurgical reconstruction. Plas Reconstr Surg. 2001;108(4):1029–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.