@article {S{\"O}RELIUS1, author = {KARL S{\"O}RELIUS and LUIGI SCHIRALDI and SALVATORE GIORDANO and CARLO M. ORANGES and WASSIM RAFFOUL and PIETRO G. DI SUMMA}, title = {Reconstructive Surgery of Inguinal Defects: A Systematic Literature Review of Surgical Etiology and Reconstructive Technique}, volume = {33}, number = {1}, pages = {1--9}, year = {2019}, doi = {10.21873/invivo.11431}, publisher = {International Institute of Anticancer Research}, abstract = {Background/Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the literature regarding surgical etiology demanding inguinal reconstructive surgery, associated reconstructive techniques and outcomes. Materials and Methods: A systematic literature search was performed according to the PRISMA statement between 1996-2016. Results: A total of 64 articles were included, comprising 816 patients. Two main subgroups of patients were identified: Oncological resections (n=255, 31\%), and vascular surgery (n=538, 66\%). Oncological resection inguinal defects were treated with pedicled myocutaneous flaps (n=166, 65\%), fasciocutaneous flaps (77, 31\%), muscle flaps (7, 3\%) and direct closure (3, 1\%). Vascular surgery complications were treated with muscle flaps (n=513, 95\%). Complications for the respective subgroup (oncological resections, vascular surgery) were: infection (24\%, 14\%), seroma (34\%, 7.5\%), flap dehiscence/delayed healing (20.6\%, 40.8\%,). The total reintervention rate was 20\%. Conclusion: Reconstruction of inguinal defects should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Myocutaneous flaps were favoured after oncological resections, while muscle flaps were preferred after vascular surgery.}, issn = {0258-851X}, URL = {https://iv.iiarjournals.org/content/33/1/1}, eprint = {https://iv.iiarjournals.org/content/33/1/1.full.pdf}, journal = {In Vivo} }