OBJECTIVES: Despite the number of surgical advances and innovations in techniques over time, radical vulvectomy frequently results in substantial loss of tissue that cannot be primarily closed without tension, the mobilization of surrounding tissues or even the rotation of myocutaneous flaps. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of leaving the surgical vulvar open wound for secondary healing in situations where primary closure of the vulvar wound is not possible. METHODS: This case-control pilot study analyzed 16 women with a diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva who first underwent inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy, 6-week sessions of chemotherapy and 25 daily sessions of radiotherapy. Afterward, excision of the vulvar lesion with free margins was performed between January 2011 and July 2017. Twelve patients underwent primary closure of the wound (control), and in 4 patients, the surgical wound was left open for secondary healing by means of a hydrofiber (case). The inclusion criteria were a) FIGO-2009 stage II up to IIIC; b) squamous cell carcinoma; and c) no evidence of pelvic or extrapelvic disease or pelvic nodal involvement. The exclusion criteria were extrapelvic disease or pelvic nodal involvement, another primary cancer, or a poor clinical condition. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02067052. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients at the time of the intervention was 62.1. The distribution of the stages was as follows: II, n=6 (37 %); IIIA, n=1 (6%), IIIB, n=1 (6%) and IIIC, n=8 (51%). The mean operative time was 45 minutes. The hospital stay duration was 2 days. Full vulvar healing occurred after an average of 30 days in the control group and after an average of 50 days in the case group. CONCLUSION: A secondary healing strategy may be an option for the treatment of vulvar cancer in situations of non-extensive surgical wounds when primary closure of the wound is not possible.
PURPOSE: To compare the inflammatory response of three different meshes on abdominal hernia repair in an experimental model of incisional hernia.METHODS: Median fascial incision and skin synthesis was performed on 30 Wistar rats. After 21 days, abdominal hernia developed was corrected as follows: 1) No mesh; 2) Polypropylene mesh; and, 3) Ultrapro(r) mesh. After 21 days, the mesh and surrounding tissue were submitted to macroscopic (presence of adhesions, mesh retraction), microscopic analysis to identify and quantify the inflammatory and fibrotic response using a score based on a predefined scale of 0-3 degrees, evaluating infiltration of macrophages, giant cells, neutrophils and lymphocytes.RESULTS: No significant difference was seen among groups in adherences, fibrosis, giant cells, macrophages, neutrophils or lymphocytes (p>0.05). Mesh shrinkage was observed in all groups, but also no difference was observed between polypropylene and Ultrapro mesh (7.0±9.9 vs. 7.4±10.1, respectively, p=0.967). Post-operatory complications included fistula, abscess, dehiscence, serohematic collection and reherniation, but with no difference among groups (p=0.363).CONCLUSION:There is no difference between polypropylene (high-density) and Ultrapro(r) (low-density) meshes at 21 days after surgery in extraperitoneal use in rats, comparing inflammatory response, mesh shortening, adhesions or complications.