Perineal perforator switch flap for three-dimensional vulvovaginal reconstruction

Background: Vulvovaginal reconstruction is challenging. In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of vulvovaginal reconstruction with "perineal perforator switch flap" (PPSF) and compared it with other conventional flaps. In addition, the long-term esthetic results were compared with the perineal perforator propeller flap (PPPF), which we previously used.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of 16 patients (27 flaps) who underwent vulvovaginal reconstruction with PPSF. After tumor resection, perineal perforators close to the genitofemoral sulcus were identified. The flap was designed as an island with the perforator at the center. The flap was elevated while preserving the soft tissue surrounding the pedicle, and transferred to the defect via the subcutaneous tunnel without pedicle skeletonization.Results: All flaps survived and no major surgical complications were observed. The total follow-up period was 16.13 +/- 3.38 months. The mean operation time was 79.38 +/- 19.65 min, and the initiation of walking and the length of hospitalization were 1.69 +/- 0.79 and 5.69 +/- 0.79 days, respectively. Perineal function was well preserved. Comparison of esthetic results with PPPF showed that PPSF showed better results in symmetrical and labial shape (2.29 +/- 0.73 vs. 3.13 +/- 0.81; p = 0.015, 2.43 +/- 1.02 vs. 3.25 +/- 0.68; p = 0.031, respectively), and in total score. (10.29 +/- 2.16 vs. 12.31 +/- 1.82; p = 0.017).Conclusion: PPSF was technically simple and significantly reduced the duration of operation and the overall recovery time. PPSF also prevented delay in radiation. Therefore, PPSF is a promising method for vulvovaginal reconstruction.(c) 2022 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by El-sevier Ltd. All rights reserved.