Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / @xirurgi_2025 / @xirurgi_2025 - 625 - файл
.pdf
28 Prophylactic Surgery forBenign Gynecologic Pathologies
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
321
28.5.2 Risks Against Benets
andFeasibility
Increased morbidity related to prophylactic
appendectomy is shown in many studies [82–86].
There are also many studies proving that prophylactic appendectomy does not increase morbidity
[87–89]. Although the issue is controversial,
gynecologists are cautious about prophylactic
appendectomy. This can be explained by the lack
of denitive recommendations and medico-legal
concerns. A study with one of the goals is to
address these concerns was performed in Holland.
Forty ve cesarean delivery with prophylactic
appendectomy and 48 cesarean delivery without
prophylactic appendectomy were performed by
obstetrics and gynecology resident physicians
who were supervised by maternal fetal medicine
faculty members. No increased morbidity was
found between the two groups at the end of the
study. Venous engorgement in pelvis, a fresh
uterine scar, blood in the uterine and abdominal
cavity, increased risk of ileus, bacterial contamination in manipulation of the bowel, increased
blood loss, and increased operating time can be
counted as justied concerns, as well [90–92].
In the light of abovementioned controversial
literature, patient selection should be individualized for coincidental appendectomy in obstetrics
and gynecological surgery and contribution of
general surgeons should be requested in
operation.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Mrs.
Sandie Elisme for language editing.
References
1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
ACOG Committee Opinion No. 774: opportunistic
salpingectomy as a strategy for epithelial ovarian cancer prevention. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133:e279–84.
2. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics,
2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:7–30.
3. Bruckner HW, Cohen CJ, Goldberg JD, etal. Cisplatin
regimens and improved prognosis of patients with
poorly differentiated ovarian cancer. Am J Obstet
Gynecol. 1983;145:653.
4. Vogl SE, Pagano M, Kaplan BH, et al. Cis-platin
based combination chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer. High overall response rate with curative
potential only in women with small tumor burdens.
Cancer. 1983;51:2024.
5. Bristow RE, Chang J, Ziogas A, etal. High-volume
ovarian cancer care: survival impact and disparities
in access for advanced-stage disease. Gynecol Oncol.
2014;132:403.
6. Kindelberger DW, Lee Y, Miron A, etal. Intraepithelial
carcinoma of the mbria and pelvic serous carcinoma:
evidence for a causal relationship. Am J Surg Pathol.
2007;31:161–9.
7. Kuhn E, Kurman RJ, Vang R, etal. TP53 mutations in
serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma and concurrent
pelvic high-grade serous carcinoma–evidence supporting the clonal relationship of the two lesions. J
Pathol. 2012;226:421–6.
8. Rice MS, Hankinson SE, Tworoger SS. Tubal ligation, hysterectomy, unilateral oophorectomy, and risk
of ovarian cancer in the Nurses’ Health Studies. Fertil
Steril. 2014;102:192–8.e3.
9. Falconer H, Yin L, Gronberg H, Altman D.Ovarian
cancer risk after salpingectomy: a nationwide
population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst.
2015;107(2):dju410.
10. Gaitskell K, Coffey K, Green J, etal. Tubal ligation
and incidence of 26 site-specic cancers in the million
women study. Br J Cancer. 2016;114:1033.
11. Yoon SH, Kim SN, Shim SH, etal. Bilateral salpingectomy can reduce the risk of ovarian cancer in the
general population: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer.
2016;55:38–46.
12. Garavaglia E, Sigismondi C, Ferrari S, et al. The
origin of endometriosis-associated ovarian cancer
from uterine neoplastic lesions. Med Hypotheses.
2018;110:80–2.
13. Powell CB, Alabaster A, Simmons S, et al.
Salpingectomy for sterilization: change in practice
in a large integrated health care system, 2011-2016.
Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130:961.
14. Creinin MD, Zite N. Female tubal sterilization: the
time has come to routinely consider removal. Obstet
Gynecol. 2014;124:596.
15. Zeyneloglu HB, Arici A, Olive DL. Adverse
effects of hydrosalpinx on pregnancy rates after
in vitro fertilization- embryo transfer. Fertil Steril.
1998;70:492.
16. Camus E, Poncelet C, Aucouturier JS, et al.
Hydrosalpinx and fertilization invitro-embryo transfer: abstention or salpingectomy? Abstention, salpingectomy or salpingostomy? Gynecol Obstet Fertil.
2001;29:466.
17. Cadish LA, Shepherd JP, Barber EL, etal. Risks and
benets of opportunistic salpingectomy during vaginal hysterectomy: a decision analysis. Am J Obstet
Gynecol. 2017;217:603.e1–6.
18. Rocca WA, Grossardt BR, de Andrade M,
et al. Survival patterns after oophorectomy in

322
S. A. Ari and A. Akdemir
premenopausal women: a population-based cohort
study. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7:821.
19. Parker WH, Broder MS, Chang E, etal. Ovarian conservation at the time of hysterectomy and long-term
health outcomes in the nurses’ health study. Obstet
Gynecol. 2009;113:1027–37.
20. Mytton J, Evison F, Chilton PJ, et al. Removal of
all ovarian tissue versus conserving ovarian tissue at
time of hysterectomy in premenopausal patients with
benign disease: study using routine data and data linkage. BMJ. 2017;356:j372.
21. Parker WH, Broder MS, Liu Z, etal. Ovarian conservation at the time of hysterectomy for benign disease.
Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106(2):219–26.
22. Parker WH. Bilateral oophorectomy versus ovarian
conservation: effects on long-term women’s health. J
Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17:161–6.
23. Catenacci M, Sastry S, Falcone T. Laparoscopic
surgery for endometriosis. Clin Obstet Gynecol.
2009;52:351.
24. Wiesenfeld HC, Sweet RL.Progress in the management of tuboovarian abscesses. Clin Obstet Gynecol.
1993;36:433.
25. Salim R, Gray G, Chappatte OA.The feasibility and
efcacy of laparoscope oophorectomy in the management of pelvic pain after hysterectomy. J Obstet
Gynaecol. 2007;27:718.
26. Dekel A, Efrat Z, Orvieto R, et al. The residual
ovary syndrome: a 20-year experience. Eur J Obstet
Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1996;68:159.
27. McAlpine JN, Hanley GE, Woo MM, et al.
Opportunistic salpingectomy: uptake, risks, and
complications of a regional initiative for ovarian cancer prevention. Ovarian Cancer Research
Program of British Columbia. Am J Obstet Gynecol.
2014;210:471.e1–11.
28. Hanley GE, McAlpine JN, Pearce CL, etal. The performance and safety of bilateral salpingectomy for
ovarian cancer prevention in the United States. Am J
Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216:270.e1–9.
29. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
ACOG practice bulletin no. 208: benets and risks of
sterilization. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133:e194–207.
30. Findley AD, Siedhoff MT, Hobbs KA, et al. Shortterm effects of salpingectomy during laparoscopic
hysterectomy on ovarian reserve: a pilot randomized
controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:1704–8.
31. Sahin C, Taylan E, Akdemir A, etal. The impact
of salpingectomy and single-dose systemic methotrexate treatments on ovarian reserve in ectopic
pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol.
2016;205:150–2.
32. Simsek D, Akdemir A, Ergenoglu M, etal. Effect of
opportunistic salpingectomy on ovarian reserve in
patients undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications. Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;1:191–9.
33. Venturella R, Lico D, Borelli M, etal. 3 to 5 years
later: long-term effects of prophylactic bilateral salpingectomy on ovarian function. J Minim Invasive
Gynecol. 2017;24:145–50.
34. Asgari Z, Tehranian A, Rouholamin S, et al.
Comparing surgical outcome and ovarian reserve after
laparoscopic hysterectomy between two methods of
with and without prophylactic bilateral salpingectomy: a randomized controlled trial. J Can Res Ther.
2018;14:543–8.
35. Ganer Herman H, Gluck O, Keidar R, etal. Ovarian
reserve following cesarean section with salpingectomy vs tubal ligation: a randomized trial. Am J
Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217:472.e1–6.
36. Shinar S, Blecher Y, Alpern S, etal. Total bilateral salpingectomy versus partial bilateral salpingectomy for
permanent sterilization during cesarean delivery. Arch
Gynecol Obstet. 2017;295:1185–9.
37. Subramaniam A, Blanchard CT, Erickson BK, etal.
Feasibility of complete salpingectomy compared with
standard postpartum tubal ligation at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol.
2018;132:20–7.
38. Garcia C, Moskowitz OM, Chisholm CA, et al.
Salpingectomy compared with tubal ligation at cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132:29–34.
39. Danis RB, Della Badia CR, Richard SD. Postpartum
permanent sterilization: could bilateral salpingectomy
replace bilateral tubal ligation? J Minim Invasive
Gynecol. 2016;23:928–32.
40. McAlpine JN, Hanley GE, Woo MM, et al.
Opportunistic salpingectomy: uptake, risks, and complications of a regional initiative for ovarian cancer
prevention. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210:471.E1.
41. Westberg J, Scott F, Creinin MD. Safety outcomes
of female sterilization by salpingectomy and tubal
occlusion. Contraception. 2017;95(5):505–8.
42. Antosh DD, High R, Brown HW, et al. Feasibility of
prophylactic salpingectomy during vaginal hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217:605.e1–5.
43. Kwon JS, McAlpine JN, Hanley GE, et al. Costs
and benets of opportunistic salpingectomy as an
ovarian cancer prevention strategy. Obstet Gynecol.
2015;125:338.
44. Chene G, Rahimi K, Mes-Masson AM, etal. Surgical
implications of the potential new tubal pathway for
ovarian carcinogenesis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol.
2013;20:153–9.
45. Cass I, Holschneider C, Datta N, et al. BRCAmutation- associated fallopian tube carcinoma:
a distinct clinical phenotype? Obstet Gynecol.
2005;106:1327–34.
46. Wilcox LS, Koonin LM, Pokras R, etal. Hysterectomy
in the United States, 1988–1990. Obstet Gynecol.
1994;83:549–55.
47. Aigmueller T, Dungl A, Hinterholzer S, et al.
An estimation of the frequency of surgery for
posthysterectomy vault prolapse. Int Urogynecol J.
2010;21:299–302.
48. Altman D, Falconer C, Cnattingius S, et al. Pelvic
organ prolapse surgery following hysterectomy
on benign indications. Am J Obstet Gynecol.
2008;198:572.e1.

28 Prophylactic Surgery forBenign Gynecologic Pathologies
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
323
49. DeLancey JO. Anatomic aspects of vaginal eversion after hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol.
1992;166:1717.
50. Marchionni M, Bracco GL, Checcucci V, etal. True
incidence of vaginal vault prolapse. Thirteen years of
experience. J Reprod Med. 1999;44:679.
51. Lykke R, Blaakær J, Ottesen B, et al. Incidence of
pelvic organ prolapse repair subsequent to hysterectomy: a comparison between radical hysterectomy
and total abdominal hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J.
2017;28:745.
52. Barber MD, Brubaker L, Burgio KL, etal. Comparison
of 2 transvaginal surgical approaches and perioperative behavioral therapy for apical vaginal prolapse: the
OPTIMAL randomized trial. JAMA. 2014;311:1023.
53. Committee on Practice Bulletins—Gynecology and
the American Urogynecologic Society. Practice bulletin no. 176: pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol.
2017;129:e56.
54. AAGL Advancing Minimally Invasive Gynecology
Worldwide. AAGL practice report: practice guidelines on the prevention of apical prolapse at the time
of benign hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol.
2014;21:715.
55. Hoffman MS, Lynch CM, Nackley A. Ureteral
obstruction from high McCall’s culdeplasty. J
Gynecol Surg. 2000;16:119–23.
56. Margulies RU, Rogers MA, Morgan DM.Outcomes
of transvaginal uterosacral ligament suspension:
systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet
Gynecol. 2010;202:124.
57. Rardin CR, Erekson EA, Sung VW, etal. Uterosacral
colpopexy at the time of vaginal hysterectomy: comparison of laparoscopic and vaginal approaches. J
Reprod Med. 2009;54:273–80.
58. Chene G, Tardieu AS, Savary D, etal. Anatomical and
functional results of McCall culdoplasty in the prevention of enteroceles and vaginal vault prolapse after
vaginal hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor
Dysfunct. 2008;19(7):1007–11.
59. Gencdal S, Demirel E, Soyman Z, etal. Prophylactic
McCall culdoplasty by a vaginal approach during
mini-laparoscopic hysterectomy. Biomed Res Int.
2019;2019:8047924.
60. Davenport ER, Vennart RM. Prophylactic laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension. J Minim
Invasive Gynecol. 2019;26(7 Suppl):S88.
61. Gustilo-Ashby AM, Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, et al.
The incidence of ureteral obstruction and the value
of intraoperative cystoscopy during vaginal surgery
for pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol.
2006;194:1478.
62. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Practice bulletin no. 142: cerclage for the management of cervical insufciency. Obstet Gynecol.
2014;123:372–9.
63. Iams JD, Johnson FF, Sonek J, etal. Cervical competence as a continuum: a study of ultrasonographic cervical length and obstetric performance. Am J Obstet
Gynecol. 1995;172:1097–103.
64. Saccone G, Ciardulli A, Xodo S.Cervical pessary for
preventing preterm birth in singleton pregnancies with
short cervical length: a systematic review and metaanalysis. J Ultrasound Med. 2017;36(8):1535–43.
65. Sneider K, Christiansen OB, Sundtoft IB.Recurrence
rates after abdominal and vaginal cerclages in women
with cervical insufciency: a validated cohort study.
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;295(4):859–66.
66. Treadwell MC, Bronsteen RA, Bottoms SF.Prognostic
factors and complication rates for cervical cerclage: a review of 482 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol.
1991;165:555–8.
67. Althuisius S, Dekker G, Hummel P, et al. Cervical
incompetence prevention randomized cerclage trial
(CIPRACT): effect of therapeutic cerclage with bed
rest vs. bed rest only on cervical length. Ultrasound
Obstet Gynecol. 2002;20:163–7.
68. Wolfe L, DePasquale S, Adair CD, et al. Roboticassisted laparoscopic placement of transabdominal cerclage during pregnancy. Am J Perinatol.
2008;25:653–5.
69. Groom K, Jones BA, Edmonds K, etal. Preconception
transabdominal cervicoisthmic cerclage. Am J Obstet
Gynecol. 2004;191(1):230–4.
70. Dawood F, Farquharson RG. Transabdominal cerclage: preconceptual versus rst trimester insertion.
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;199:27–31.
71. Vousden NJ, Carter J, Seed PT, et al. What is the
impact of preconception abdominal cerclage on fertility: evidence from a randomized controlled trial. Acta
Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017;96:543–6.
72. Berghella V, Szychowski JM, Owen J, etal. Suture
type and ultrasound-indicated cerclage efcacy.
Vaginal ultrasound trial consortium. J Matern Fetal
Neonatal Med. 2012;25:2287–90.
73. Davis G, Berghella V, Talucci M, etal. Patients with
a prior failed transvaginal cerclage: a comparison
of obstetric outcomes with either transabdominal
or trans-vaginal cerclage. Am J Obstet Gynecol.
2000;183:836–9.
74. Romero R, Espinoza J, Erez O, etal. The role of cervical cerclage in obstetric practice: can the patient who
could benet from this procedure be identied? Am J
Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:1–9.
75. Arı SA, Akdemir A, Sendag F.Transabdominal cervical cerclage. In: Nezhat C, Kavic M, Lanzafame R,
Lindsay M, Polk T, editors. Non-obstetric surgery
during pregnancy. Berlin: Springer; 2019. p.355–60.
76. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Elective coincidental appendectomy: ACOG committee opinion 323. Washington, DC: The College;
2005.
77. Addiss DG, Shaffer N, Fowler BS, etal. The epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in the United
States. Am J Epidemiol. 1990;132:910–25.
78. Snyder TE, Selanders JR.Incidental appendectomy—
yes or no? A retrospective case study and review of the
literature. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol. 1998;6:30–7.
79. Lal AK, Weaver AL, Hopkins MR, etal. Laparoscopic
appendectomy in women without identiable

324
S. A. Ari and A. Akdemir
pathology undergoing laparoscopy for chronic pelvic
pain. JSLS. 2013;17(1):82–7.
80. Wie HJ, Lee JH, Kyung MS, etal. Is incidental appendectomy necessary in women with ovarian endometrioma? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;48:107–11.
81. Peters A, Mansuria SM. The role of appendectomy at the time of laparoscopic surgery for benign
gynecologic conditions. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol.
2018;30(4):237–42.
82. Salom EM, Schey D, Penalver M, etal. The safety
of incidental appendectomy at the time of abdominal
hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:1563–
7; discussion 1567–8.
83. Tranmer BI, Graham AM, Sterns EE. Incidental
appendectomy?—yes. Can J Surg. 1981;24:191–2.
84. Voitk AJ, Lowry JB. Is incidental appendectomy a
safe practice? Can J Surg. 1988;31:448–51.
85. Chiarugi M, Buccianti P, Decanini L, etal. What you
see is not what you get. A plea to remove a ‘normal’
appendix during diagnostic laparoscopy. Acta Chir
Belg. 2001;101:243–5.
86. Nezhat C, Nezhat F. Incidental appendectomy
during videolaseroscopy. Am J Obstet Gynecol.
1991;165:559–64.
87. Pearce C, Torres C, Stallings S, etal. Elective appendectomy at the time of cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial [published correction appears in
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Aug;201(2):214]. Am J
Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(5):491.e1–e4915.
88. Lee JH, Choi JS, Jeon SW, etal. Laparoscopic incidental appendectomy during laparoscopic surgery
for ovarian endometrioma. Am J Obstet Gynecol.
2011;204(1):28.e1–e285.
89. Choksuwattanasakul M. Incidental appendectomy during mini incision post-partum sterilization
(Chokchai technique): a prospective cross-sectional
study. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2017;43(12):1863–9.
90. Israel SL, Roitman HB. Cesarean section and prophylactic appendectomy: the passing of a prejudice.
Obstet Gynecol. 1957;10:102–4.
91. Tungphaisal S, Chandeying V, Pinjaroen S, et al.
Incidental appendectomy at cesarean section: a prospective study. J Med Assoc Thail. 1989;72:633–7.
92. Parsons AK, Sauer MV, Parsons MT, et al.
Appendectomy at cesarean section: a prospective
study. Obstet Gynecol. 1986;68:479–82.

Prophylactic Surgical Procedures
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
inPlastic Surgery
ÖmerFarukDilek , FuatUslusoy ,
andMustafaAsımAydın
29
29.1 Introduction
Prophylactic or preventive surgery is mostly
known as a type of surgery whose purpose is to
prevent the risk of developing cancer in an organ
or gland. Although the usage of the term mostly
restricted to cancer prevention based on the
genetic characteristic, besides the cancer prevention, there are wide variety of cancer-unrelated
conditions that their progression into unwanted
consequences or more complex future diseases
can be prevented surgically.
Since the surgeries are usually permanent and
irreversible, in addition to detailed workups and
consultations, ethical, physiological, and psychological aspects of the procedure should be discussed with the patients before the procedure.
The pros and cons, costs, time lost, and recovery
must be carefully weighed by individuals as well.
These considerations are usually less challenging
in plastic surgery practice because rather than
removal of an organ or gland, in most cases it is
the only resultant skin scar of the body that
should be taken into account. However, the prob-
Ö. F. Dilek (*)
Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery,
Harakani State Hospital, Kars, Turkey
e-mail: omerfaruk.dilek@saglik.gov.tr
F. Uslusoy · M. A. Aydın
Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery,
Suleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey
e-mail: fuatuslusoy@sdu.edu.tr;
asimaydin@sdu.edu.tr
lem and its solution can also be extremely challenging if the case is a congenital melanocytic
nevus covering more than half of an infant’s body
that requires meticulous planning, multiple surgeries, and implant (tissue expander) replacements. It should be also kept in mind that, as a
rule of thumb, surgical intentions in plastic surgery practice are mostly based on individual
characteristics and needs, namely patienttailored. Accordingly, surgeons should also carry
on this demeanor in their prophylactic surgical
practice by making patient-tailored risk and benet assessments.
Undertaking a prophylactic surgery, however,
does not certainly guarantee that the patients will
never have cancer in the future. As discussed
thoroughly at some point below in this chapter, it
is now better known that certain type of cancers,
rather than developing from congenital suspicious lesion, more likely tend to occur in the
healthy skin of a genetically susceptible individual. While this may interrogate the indication of
prophylactic surgery in certain instances, it also
underlies the importance of the dermatologic surveillance that requires harmonic interdisciplinary
interactions.
This chapter attempts to review plastic surgical prophylactic conditions under three main topics. First, “cancer-related conditions” mainly
discusses the hereditary syndromes with skin
manifestations in which cancer prevention can be
achieved by recognizing and removing the certain type skin lesions and it also addresses some
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
O. N. Dilek et al. (eds.), Prophylactic Surgery, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66853-2_29
325

326
Ö. F. Dilek et al.
other sporadic conditions associated with the
cancer development. Second topic accounts for
well-known “premalignant lesions” in that some
of their prophylactic surgical removal can be
even lifesaving. And lastly “cancer-unrelated
conditions” comprise certain benign conditions
or injuries that are surgically targeted to prevent
some kind of unwanted conditions, complications, or loss of function.
29.2 Cancer-Related Conditions
Cancer-related prophylactic surgical applications
in plastic surgery mostly begin with identication
of the skin or soft tissue lesions that are known to
be at increased risk for developing cancer.
Cooperation between medical departments is
also important because, as being the largest
organ, the skin overlaps the interest of multiple
disciplines and either detection or follow-up of a
lesion with increased cancer risk often requires
strict dermatologic surveillance. Furthermore,
patients suffering from hereditary syndromes are
somehow more likely to need multidisciplinary
treatment.
Suspicious changes of previous lesion or a
newly identied suspicious lesion during the dermatologic surveillance can lead the surgeon to
perform a prophylactic removal, or despite the
follow-up recommendation of a dermatologist,
the patient can seek surgery because of the fear of
cancer.
The identication of premalignant skin lesions
and treatment of such suspicious lesions through
prophylactic excision might have played an
important role in the efforts to prevent and cure
skin malignancies. In the light of striking contrast
between the sophistication of diagnostic tools,
and the crudeness of preventive surgery, treatment of these lesions, nevertheless, has been
remained problematic and controversial. On the
other hand, these lesions are usually conspicuous
aberrations that patients seek a way to get rid of
cosmetically. However, the oncological concerns
for complete removal of dysplastic tissue do not
usually coincide with some elaborate procedures
for concealment of these lesions such as shaving,
peeling, curettage, or desiccation. When a patient
is diagnosed with a premalignant skin lesion,
there are two options to recommend: watchful
waiting or prophylactic removal. If a strong family and social support is available and close clinical surveillance seems to be feasible, the recent
trend tends to be in favor of the former way. In
the face of diagnosed severe genetic instability
and a report of strong family predisposition to
malignant skin lesions, preemptive surgery might
be lifesaving, keeping in mind, however, the
malignancies not infrequently stem from normalappearing skin in these patients.
29.2.1 Hereditary Melanoma
andAtypical Mole/Nevus
(Dysplastic Nevus)
Hereditary melanoma refers a spectrum of genetically inherited conditions which have an
increased risk for developing malignant melanoma of the skin and/or other tissues. Cutaneous
malignant melanoma (CMM) is a neoplasm arising from skin melanocytes (Fig.29.1). It represents a small percentage of the overall skin
cancers diagnosed each year (3%) but is accountable for an overwhelming number of the deaths
(65%) resulted from the skin cancers [1].
Nevertheless, CMM is also a kind of malignancy
that, if diagnosed early enough, almost yields
100% recovery. Since the 1950s, the incidence of
melanoma has increased 340%; however, the
death rate from melanoma has increased only
Fig. 29.1 Cutaneous malignant melanoma of the hand

29 Prophylactic Surgical Procedures inPlastic Surgery
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
327
150%, which has mostly been attributable to the
early stage of diagnosis and more curable potential of the disease when detected at earlier stages
[1, 2]. Many factors are known that increase the
neoplastic transformation of the melanocytes.
Ultraviolet (UV) irradiation, intermittent sun
exposure (especially childhood sunburn), red or
blonde hair, blue or gray eye color, Fitzpatrick
skin types I and II, giant congenital nevi, atypical
mole/dysplastic nevi, immunosuppression and
genetic disorders, such as xeroderma pigmentosum, Li–Fraumeni syndrome, and Familial
Atypical Multiple Mole-Melanoma (FAMMM)
syndrome constitute the most signicant risk factors [3–6]. Increased awareness and surveillance
of the abnormal and premalignant skin lesions
[3] as well as recognizing patients at familial risk
[7] has in part led to increased incidence of CMM
detection at earlier stages, which plays an essential role to decrease the mortality of the disease.
Approximately 5–10% of all CMMs occur in
families with hereditary melanoma predisposition [8]. This familial type of CMM was rst
described two centuries ago. In 1820, Norris
(1820) referred his observations to as a “fungoid
disease” and described a family in which two
members had CMM and several relatives had
large moles [9]. In 1952, Cawley reported CMMs
in a father with his two children and suggested a
hereditary basis for the occurrence [10]. Later in
1967, Anderson etal. described 22 similar families [11]. After a decade, Clark etal. (1978) presented the B-K mole syndrome characterized by
the existence of numerous moles and increased
risk of CMM formation among the family members [12]. Clinic and histologic properties
described by Clark’s studies gave rise to many
controversies. Soon after, Lynch (1978) proposed
a more accurate naming, FAMMM syndrome, to
be given to the observations in association with a
distinguishing cutaneous phenotype characterized by multiple large moles, irregular in shape,
colored reddish-brown to pink, with evidence of
pigmentary leakage, and with an apparent autosomal dominant mode of inheritance [13].
In the readings on the hereditary melanoma,
besides the clinical terms such as dysplastic
nevus syndrome [14], atypical mole syndrome
[15] and Clark’s nevus syndrome [16], marked
variety of histopathological terminology, for
example, active junctional nevus, melanocytic
intraepithelial neoplasia, pagetoid melanocytic
proliferation, atypical melanocytic proliferation
or nevus with architectural disorder can be
encountered. A National Institutes of Health
(NIH) Consensus Conference in 1992 recommended the descriptive term “atypical mole/
nevus” for the clinical diagnosis and the histologic term “dysplastic nevus” be replaced with
“nevus with architectural disorder” and accompanied with a statement describing the presence
of atypia (mild, moderate, or severe) [17].
However, abovementioned and some other recommendations of NIH has never been fully
adopted by the medical community and the use of
the appellation “dysplastic nevus” widely continues [18]. All these different nomenclature and
descriptions advocated are to describe leading
actor lesion of the hereditary melanoma.
Furthermore, atypical mole/nevus or dysplastic
nevus provokes controversies and discussions not
only for its clinical and histological terminology,
but also for its denition, progression, and management. Although there are several modied
denition criteria made by various authors [12,
14, 17, 19, 20], an atypical mole/nevus is simply
a mole that exhibits distinct clinical features from
banal mole and shares common histological features with CMM.Some authors advocate abandoning the term “dysplastic nevus” [18] since it
is not a clinical entity that is recognizable by a
diagnostic criterion but can only be identied by
histological examination [21]. Indeed, as shown
by many studies, clinical diagnosis and the histologic properties of the common or atypical moles
may not be correlated reliably [22, 23]. There are
also some well-documented studies indicating
patients with atypical moles, either sporadically
[24–27] or with a positive family history [20, 28,
29], are at increased risk for developing
CMM. However, in these patients, rather than
inevitably progression of an atypical mole
through sequentially higher grades of dysplasia
and eventually into melanoma, it is shown that
the most likely CMM development occurs on the
healthy skin (de novo) or in the clinically typical

328
Ö. F. Dilek et al.
banal mole [19, 20, 30–32]. Furthermore, there is
only little evidence indicating that the individual
dysplastic nevus lesions transform into CMM at
any higher rate than banal nevi [21]. This leaves
the fundamental question (whether dysplastic
nevus represents a premalignant or precursor
lesion for CMM) unanswered and leads controversies for the management. Currently, it is better
known that what really confers to increased risk
for CMM are high total mole count and large
mole size, both frequently encountered in the
familial form [33–35]. Despite the ongoing
debates and common traditional approximations,
behaving atypical moles as precursors for CMM
has greatly diminished since they rarely develop
into CMM on their own [18, 36].
Identication of the properties of inheritance
in hereditary melanoma was greatly accomplished by Lynch etal. [37] in the early 1980s.
Segregation analysis performed by the authors
supported the FAMMM syndrome as an autosomal dominantly inherited syndrome that displays
variable expressivity and reduced penetrance.
Phenotypic variations such as cancers other than
CMM noted in the FAMMM syndrome also led
to identication of an association with pancreatic
cancer by Lynch and Fusaro in 1991 [38].
Kaufman etal. described Melanoma Astrocytoma
Syndrome (MAS) after identifying concurrent
familial CMMs and nervous system tumors in
1993 [39]. Since 1997, the Melanoma Genetics
Consortium, GenoMEL, comprised of researchers worldwide, has been actively working on the
genetics of familial CMM.Studies have shown
that carrying inherited germline mutations in particular cell cycle regulatory genes such as cyclindependent kinase 4 (CDK4) gene on chromosome
12q14 [40, 41] or the cyclin-dependent kinase
inhibitor 2A (CDKN2A) gene on chromosome
9p21 [42, 43] are considered to be major risk factors for familial melanoma. The frequency of
CDKN2A mutations is more common than CDK4
mutations (20–40% versus 2%) in melanomaprone families [8] and the variable penetrance of
these mutations is known to be modied by environmental factors (e.g., geographic location and
sun exposure patterns) [44, 45], melanoma associated phenotypes and coinheritance of several
specic interleukin-9, glutathione S-transferase
theta 1 or melanocortin-1-receptor (MC1R) variants [46, 47]. MC1R gene, a low-risk melanoma
susceptibility gene, partly regulates pigmentation
phenotype that may act both dependently and
independently of UV radiation to inuence melanoma risk [48, 49].
NIH identied FAMMM syndrome as a clinical phenotype that requires to meet all of the following criteria for the diagnosis: (1) occurrence of
CMM in one or more rst- or second-degree relatives, (2) presence of high total body nevi count
(>50) and multiple atypical nevi, (3) specic histologic features in nevi, including: asymmetry, subepidermal broplasia, lentiginous melanocytic
hyperplasia with spindle or epithelioid melanocytes, variable dermal lymphocyte inltration, and
presence of shouldering phenomenon [17].
Management of patients with FAMMM syndrome has focused on the following issues: (1)
intensive dermatologic surveillance at periodic
intervals facilitated by diagnostic aids for early
detection of CMM; (2) biopsy of suspicious
lesions; and (3) preventive measures such as sun
protection, self-examination, and nevi reduction
for prophylaxis. The frequency of surveillance
although depends upon degree of the risk (e.g.,
number of atypical nevi), however, most authors
agree on that 6-month intervals starting from
adolescence are adequate [4, 50–52].
Documenting a thorough family history of cancer, especially melanoma or pancreatic cancer is
of utmost importance. Screening should also be
offered to rst-degree and selected second-degree
relatives of the patient. Special attention should
be paid to patient’s description of the changes
within the preexisting moles and to the newly
formed pigmented moles. Moreover, physician
should always keep in mind the controversial
dilemma: although atypical moles are more likely
to undergo malignant transformation when compared to banal moles, melanomas of FAMMM
syndrome, however, often develop on normal
skin. Baseline total body skin examination should
include the sun-protected areas, scalp, genitals,
oral mucosa, and nails with records of highquality photographs. Because the patients may
have many atypical moles, lesions exhibiting the

29 Prophylactic Surgical Procedures inPlastic Surgery
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
329
so-called “ugly duckling sign” should warrant
special attention. Currently, majority of the clinicians use the standard “ABCDE” rules to evaluate pigmented moles. This refers to Asymmetric
shape, Border irregularity, Color variability,
Diameter greater than 6mm, and Evolution [4].
Patients at risk should also do complete selfexamination at every 3months, looking for any
perceived changes in shape, borders, color, and
size. The patient should be informed about the
importance of skin self-examination, which has
the potential to detect CMM at earlier stages and
reduce mortality [53, 54], and he or she should
know the warning signs of the CMM and the prophylactics (e.g., sun protection). Such an
approach allows detecting melanoma in earlier
stages, decreases unnecessary surgical mole
removals and makes the patient and the physician
psychologically more comfortable [36].
After detailed objective physical examination,
recognized atypical moles should be evaluated by
dermoscopy, a noninvasive technique that allows
for inspection of skin lesions unobstructed by
skin surface reections with a high diagnostic
accuracy (80–90%) [4]. Although ongoing controversies about their cost-effectiveness [55],
more advanced techniques such as total body
photography and sequential digital dermoscopy
imaging have also been suggested [53] for CMM
detection at earlier stages.
Traditionally, atypical moles/dysplastic nevi
were considered as precursor lesions to CMM,
and it has been common to recommend prophylactic removal of these atypical-appearing moles
[36]. Today, while one group still supports treating atypical moles as “premalignant skin lesions”
[56, 57], the others, in contrast, resist this
approach since the most CMMs in patients with
FAMMM syndrome often develop de novo [19,
58]. Some authors advocate futility of preemptive
removal of stable or benign-appearing moles
since this practice has not been shown to reduce
the CMM risk meaningfully and associated with
increased morbidity and costs (level of evidence,
IV) [36, 45]. However, there are some scenarios
in which prophylactic removal of the atypical
moles can be recommended: lesions with diagnostic doubts, dealing with only a few [36], or
numerous [59] atypical moles, lacking prior photographic records [60], visually inaccessible
lesions during self-examination (e.g., those on
genitals, scalp, and back) [36], and having concurrent cosmetic goals. Furthermore, prophylactic surgery may be sought by either the patient or
the physician with the fear of missing CMM on
self-examination or clinic follow-up [59]. It is
clear that complete removal of a patient’s nevi
will not completely prevent CMM risk because
of its propensity to occur de novo or in preexisting banal nevi, and the answer for the question
“to what extent prophylactic excision would
reduce long-term CMM in high-risk patients”
remains unclear [59]. On the other hand, in such
individuals, any suspicious lesions including
changing atypical/banal moles or freckles and
non-healing sores should be promptly excised
and, in addition to appropriate surgical margin
clearance, further surgical interventions such as
sentinel lymph node sampling should be
completed.
The association between pancreatic cancer
and FAMMM syndrome has become evident,
with an estimated risk 13–22 times higher than
that of the normal population. It also multiplies in
patients with mutated CDKN2A [50, 61]. This
makes pancreatic cancer the second most common malignancy in the FAMMM syndrome
patients with the mutation as well [62].
MAS syndrome associated nervous system
tumors are extremely rare and may be linked to
young age (<30) astrocytomas, peripheral nerve
sheath tumors or meningiomas, which may or
may not precede the formation of CMM [45, 63].
The role of genetic testing in familial melanoma is controversial, since the dermatological
surveillance does not require much knowledge of
the patient’s CDKN2A gene mutation status.
However, knowing the inherited CDKN2A mutation can offer predictions associated with pancreatic cancer risk, and therefore it may help
providing early measures for such a malignancy
that needs to be diagnosed earlier for the best
prognosis. American Academy of Dermatology
makes recommendation for genetic counseling
referral according to individual status in the
following criteria [64]: incidence of CMM in the

330
Ö. F. Dilek et al.
geographic location, the number of primary
CMM in the patient, and the number of individuals with CMM in the family. Thus, at least, physician should consider genetic testing in situations
in which CMM is diagnosed at young age, multiple primary CMM diagnosed in the same individual, existence of multiple relatives with CMM
and other type of signicant cancer (e.g., pancreatic cancer) history in the family.
29.2.2 BAP-1 Tumor Syndrome
BAP-1 tumor syndrome, described by Wiesner in
2011 [65], is considered as an autosomal dominant
syndrome caused by germline mutations in BAP-1
(BRCA1-associated protein-1) on chromosome 3,
which can give rise to several cancers including
CMM, uveal melanoma, malignant mesothelioma,
renal cell carcinoma, and somewhat specic
lesions called melanocytic BAP-1 mutated atypical intradermal tumors (MBAITs) [66, 67]. While
MBAITs clinically resemble well-circumscribed,
dome-shaped, reddish- brown to skin-colored
benign intradermal nevi, histologically they
exhibit aggressiveness similar to nevoid melanomas or atypical Spitz tumors [67, 68]. Although
there is no sufcient evidence indicating their
malignancy, in addition to at least biannual dermatological and annual ophthalmological surveillance, patients who have MBAITs with atypia or
evolution should undergo prophylactical excision
given that these patients tend to have more aggressive malignancies with higher tumor staging and
metastasis risk (level 4 evidence) [67].
29.2.3 Cowden Syndrome
Cowden syndrome (CS), a member of PTEN (the
phosphatase and tensin homolog) hamartoma
tumor syndrome, is a multi-system disease in
which germline PTEN gene mutations cause
benign overgrowths of numerous tissues (e.g.,
gastrointestinal polyps, trichilemmomas, lipomas,
mucocutaneous neuromas, oral papilloma, and
vascular anomalies) and increased risk for malignancies of a number of the organs including breast
(most common), thyroid, endometrium, and colon
[69]. Basal cell carcinoma (BCC), squamous cell
carcinoma (SCC), or carcinoma of Merkel can
rarely be seen as malignant skin manifestation of
CS [70]. However, more recently, even if yet not
included in the diagnostic criteria of the CS, it has
been postulated that the CS patients tend to have
increased risk for CMM [71, 72]. Although current guideline recommends dermatologic surveillance only if needed, CS patients frequently seek
care for many of their socially disabling benign
skin manifestations. Some authors recommend
dermatologic surveillance at the time of the diagnosis and repeatedly based on the individual
needs [73] that may require prophylactic excision
of suspicious lesions.
29.2.4 Gorlin–Goltz Syndrome
Gorlin–Goltz syndrome (GGS) is a rare autosomal dominant neurocutaneous syndrome with
well-dened diagnostic criteria [74]. Studies have
shown GGS be resulted from mutations in
PTCH1, PTCH2, or SUFU genes which encode
hedgehog signaling pathway for growth control
and tissue differentiation [75]. Early onset BCCs,
palmoplantar pits, odontogenic keratocytes,
medulloblastoma, and calcication of falx cerebri
constitute some of the hallmark disorders of the
GGS (Fig.29.2). Patients with GGS may develop
from a few to several hundreds of BCCs during
their lifetime. This warrants special attention for
dermatologic surveillance. Although new promising medical therapy modalities are available in
treatment options [76], surgical excision is still
mainstay of the curative treatment of suspicious
lesions and newly occurring or recurrent BCCs.
Similar to GGS, both very rare genodermatoses, Bazex-Dupré-Christol Syndrome (BDCS)
and Rombo Syndrome (RS) possess early onset
BCC as a common malignant skin manifestation.
Apart from BCCs, BDCS exhibits hypotrichosis,
follicular atrophoderma, hypohidrosis, and milia.
While males have a propensity of having more
severe symptoms, lack of evidence of male-tomale transmission has led to the consideration
that BDCS is inherited in a dominant X-linked
Соседние файлы в папке @xirurgi_2025
