Gluteal-Region Perforator Flaps (SGAP / IGAP / Gluteal-Fold)
The gluteal-region perforator-flap family comprises three anatomically distinct entities that are often conflated:
- SGAP — Superior Gluteal Artery Perforator flap; perforators exit above piriformis; smaller territory (~69 cm²), shorter pedicle (~9.8 cm); workhorse for lumbosacral defects and a second-line free-flap option for breast.[1][2][3]
- IGAP — Inferior Gluteal Artery Perforator flap; perforators exit below piriformis; larger territory (~177 cm²), longer pedicle (~13.4 cm); dominant pedicled choice for perineal reconstruction after APR / exenteration; equivalent to VRAM.[1][3][35]
- Gluteal-fold flap (GFF) / infragluteal perforator flap — fasciocutaneous flap along the gluteal fold based on direct cutaneous branches of the IGA descending branch (or internal pudendal artery); suprafascial, no intramuscular dissection; spares the IGA descending branch for future flaps — a strategic advantage in paraplegic patients.[40][41]
A fourth entity — the gluteal turnover flap — is a local advancement of deepithelialized subcutaneous fat and dermis; the BIOPEX-2 RCT showed it significantly reduces presacral abscess (22% → 9%, p = 0.02) and percutaneous drainage (8% → 1%, p = 0.04) after APR vs primary closure.[47]
For the genital-context summary see Scrotal Reconstruction Techniques; for the related axial design see Posterior Thigh Flap and Lotus Petal Flap.
Part 1 — Superior Gluteal Artery Perforator (SGAP) Flap
Vascular anatomy
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Source artery | SGA (largest branch of internal iliac), exits above piriformis through greater sciatic foramen |
| Mean perforator number | 5 ± 2 per gluteal region[1] |
| Perforator type | 100% musculocutaneous — intramuscular dissection mandatory unless septocutaneous variant[1] |
| Internal diameter at fascia | 0.6 ± 0.1 mm (artery 0.91 ± 0.07 mm)[1][2] |
| Cutaneous territory | 69 ± 56 cm² (substantially smaller than IGA)[1] |
| Perforator location | Adjacent to the medial two-thirds of the PSIS–GT line[1] |
| Pedicle length | 9.80 cm (significantly shorter than IGAP, p < 0.05)[3] |
| Submuscular venous plexus | Present — troublesome bleeding during dissection (absent in IGAP)[3] |
Septocutaneous variant (sc-GAP)
Tuinder 2011 identified consistent septocutaneous perforators emerging between gluteus maximus and medius — obviates intramuscular dissection. Mean pedicle 7.9 cm (5–10 cm), vessel size 1.8–3 mm; 11/11 flaps survived.[5] Rad's lateral septocutaneous SGAP (LSGAP) centers the flap superolaterally on the midpoint of the PSIS–GT line; mean pedicle 11.5 cm — more than double the traditional approach — while preserving central buttock contour.[6]
Sensate SGAP
Iida 2021 — sensate SGAP incorporating superior cluneal nerves (SCNs) located 6–8 cm lateral to midline at the iliac-crest level; useful for pressure-ulcer prophylaxis in ambulatory patients.[7]
Clinical applications
A. Autologous breast reconstruction (free flap). Second-line option when DIEP is unavailable.
Martineau 2022 SR/meta-analysis (14 studies, n = 667 SGAP flaps):[8]
| Outcome | Rate (95% CI) |
|---|---|
| Total flap loss | 1% (0–3%) |
| Partial flap loss | 1% (0–3%) |
| Hematoma | 3% (1–6%) |
| Emergent re-exploration | 5% (2–9%) |
| Overall donor-site complications | 12% (4–23%) |
Buijtendijk 2025 — refined SGAP technique in 33 flaps with 100% survival, no losses; mean ischemia 156 min; high BREAST-Q satisfaction.[10] Opsomer 2020 BREAST-Q — DIEP, SGAP, and LAP show similar breast / outcome satisfaction but SGAP / LAP have more donor-site discomfort.[11] Vanschoonbeek 2016 — SGAP revision rate 8.42% (venous insufficiency 62.5%) vs DIEP 3.38%; overall flap failure SGAP 1.05% vs DIEP 1.28%.[12]
B. Pedicled SGAP for lumbosacral defects. Moon 2015 deepithelialized SGAP propeller (180° rotation) in 13 patients — 12/13 survived completely (1 total necrosis from venous congestion).[18] Acartürk 2022 — a single unilateral SGAP can cover midline sacral defects > 100 cm² without intramuscular skeletonization; n = 17, all flaps survived; mean flap area 136 cm² vs defect 211 cm² exploiting gluteal-soft-tissue mobility.[19] Kim 2017 trilobed SGAP redistributes tension away from the critical Y-point where rotational flaps typically dehisce.[20]
C. Pedicled SGAP for perineal reconstruction. Zaussinger 2024 — bilateral SGAP for APR: one deepithelialized for dead-space obliteration + contralateral for superficial coverage; 3 patients (6 flaps, 9 × 20 cm), 0% loss; donor inconspicuous even bilaterally.[21]
D. Hidradenitis suppurativa. Unal 2011 — SGAP / IGAP in 8 patients; perforator dissection to sacral fascia → 10–12 cm pedicle; all flaps survived; no recurrence at 12 mo.[22]
Part 2 — Inferior Gluteal Artery Perforator (IGAP) Flap
Vascular anatomy
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Source artery | IGA, exits below piriformis with sciatic nerve, PFCN, internal pudendal vessels |
| Mean perforator number | 8 ± 4 (more numerous than SGA)[1] |
| Perforator type | 99% musculocutaneous (1% septocutaneous)[1] |
| Internal diameter | 0.6 ± 0.1 mm[1] |
| Cutaneous territory | 177 ± 38 cm² — 2.5× larger than SGA[1] |
| Perforator location | Middle third of the gluteal region above the gluteal crease[1] |
| Pedicle length | 13.36 cm (significantly longer than SGAP, p < 0.05)[3] |
| Descending branch | Arteria comitans nervi ischiadici — common sheath with PFCN in 72%; present in 91% of specimens[23] |
| Submuscular venous plexus | Absent (unlike SGAP)[3] |
SGAP vs IGAP — head-to-head anatomy
| Parameter | SGAP | IGAP |
|---|---|---|
| Source exit | Above piriformis | Below piriformis |
| Mean perforator count | 5 ± 2 | 8 ± 4 |
| Cutaneous territory | 69 ± 56 cm² | 177 ± 38 cm² |
| Pedicle length | 9.80 cm | 13.36 cm |
| Perforator type | 100% MC | 99% MC |
| Submuscular venous plexus | Present | Absent |
| Scar location | Upper buttock | Gluteal crease (hidden) |
| Sciatic-nerve proximity | Minimal | Present during dissection |
Clinical applications
A. Autologous breast reconstruction (free flap). Granzow / Allen group shifted from SGAP → IGAP for better donor-contour and a hidden gluteal-crease scar.[26]
Martineau 2023 SR/meta-analysis (7 studies, n = 239 IGAP flaps):[27]
| Outcome | Rate (95% CI) |
|---|---|
| Total flap loss | 3% (0–8%) |
| Partial flap loss | 2% (0–4%) |
| Hematoma | 3% (0–7%) |
| Overall donor-site complications | 15% (5–28%) |
| Overall recipient-site complications | 24% (15–34%) |
| Overall complication rate | 40% (23–58%) |
Mirzabeigi 2011 — "trials and tribulations": 31 IGAP flaps with 6.5% total loss; intraoperative arterial thrombosis (13% vs 2.6%, p = 0.024) and delayed venous thrombosis (13% vs 1.5%, p = 0.008) higher than DIEP.[28] Levine 2009 — "in-the-crease" IGAP, simultaneous bilateral (22 patients, 44 flaps), 100% survival.[29] Murphy 2022 — PAP vs IGAP: 21% vs 0% perioperative reoperation (p = 0.001), 12% vs 0% total failure (p = 0.01); PAP increasingly replaces IGAP for breast.[30]
B. Pedicled IGAP for perineal reconstruction — the dominant current application.
| Series | n | Findings |
|---|---|---|
| Gould 2025 (largest) | 194 patients, 176 GAP flaps (92%) | 0% flap loss; obesity HR 2.70 (p = 0.014) and total pelvic exenteration HR 2.13 (p = 0.031) for short-term complications[31] |
| Hainsworth 2012 | 40 (98% neoadjuvant CRT) | 0% flap necrosis; major flap complications 10%; median LOS 13 days[32] |
| Khalil 2022 | 31 patients, 61 flaps | 100% survival; superficial dehiscence in 3, deep collection in 1, perineal hernia in 1[33] |
| Thiel 2023 | 101 consecutive ELAPE (29 IGAP) | 0% flap necrosis; early perineal-complication rate 19.0%[34] |
| Benedict 2023 (IGAP vs VRAM) | 116 patients | No significant difference in minor (57% vs 49%, p = 0.426) or major complications (45% vs 36%, p = 0.351) — equivalent to VRAM[35] |
| Read 2026 (IGAM) | 107 patients | Sarcopenia 4.9× increased perioperative complications (p = 0.010); male sex, smoking, recurrent disease also significant[36] |
| Johal 2022 V-IGAP | 22 women (simultaneous vaginal + perineal) | 70% returned to sexual activity; minor complications 6/22[37] |
C. Pedicled IGAP for ischial pressure sores. Kim 2009 — 23 patients, all flaps survived; relapse 5/23 (21.7%) treated with bursectomy + muscle transposition; advantage is preservation of peripheral muscle and design variability.[38]
D. Propeller configuration. Chrelias 2023 — 23 G-PPF (12 SGAP + 11 IGAP) in 20 APR patients; 100% defect coverage; 55% complication rate (30% delayed healing, 15% flap complications).[39]
Part 3 — Gluteal-Fold Flap (GFF) / Infragluteal Perforator Flap
A distinct entity from the IGAP — often conflated.
Vascular anatomy
- Direct cutaneous branches of the descending branch of the IGA and/or internal pudendal artery (Scheufler / Hashimoto) — not the main IGA-trunk musculocutaneous perforators.[40][41]
- 1–2 cutaneous branches of the descending IGA + 1–2 cluneal nerves are consistently found at the lower border of gluteus maximus.[41]
- Suprafascial dissection — no intramuscular work.[43]
- The descending branch of the IGA is preserved for future flaps — a major advantage in paraplegic patients with recurrent ischial ulcers.[41]
Head-to-head with TMG and PAP (Zaussinger 2019 cadaveric)
| Parameter | Infragluteal | PAP | TMG |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pedicle external diameter | 2.9 ± 0.7 mm | 3.6 ± 0.7 mm | 2.9 ± 0.6 mm |
| Pedicle length | 12.5 ± 1.5 cm | 8.8 ± 1.0 cm | 6.7 ± 1.0 cm |
| Angiosome area | 77.2 ± 9.0 cm² | 98.5 ± 26.7 cm² | 74.1 ± 32.1 cm² |
The infragluteal flap has the longest pedicle of the three, supporting its distant-reach versatility.[42]
Distinctions from IGAP
| Feature | GFF / infragluteal | IGAP |
|---|---|---|
| Pedicle | Descending IGA branch / internal pudendal direct cutaneous | Main IGA-trunk musculocutaneous perforators |
| Dissection | Suprafascial | Subfascial / intramuscular |
| Muscle | Preserved | Intramuscular dissection required |
| Scar | Gluteal fold | Gluteal crease (often described as "in-the-crease IGAP" — similar location) |
| Future flap preservation | Yes (spares descending IGA) | No (uses IGA-trunk perforators) |
Clinical applications
A. Perineal reconstruction after anorectal malignancy.
- Winterton 2013 (largest GFF series) — 77 patients, 127 flaps; 97.6% flap survival (124/127); complications in 44% (simple wound breakdown 30%); 70% completely healed at 2 mo, 85% at 3 mo; preoperative RT prolongs time to discharge.[44]
- Koulaxouzidis 2019 — 15 patients, 22 GFFs (73.3% recurrent disease); 46.7% no complications; mainly wound-healing disorders (Clavien-Dindo I–IIIb); time to discharge 22 ± 9.9 days.[45]
B. GFF vs gracilis (Thiele 2020).[46]
| Parameter | GFF | MGF | p |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unilateral OR time | 70 ± 13 min | 105 ± 9 min | Significant |
| Bilateral OR time | 107 ± 14 min | 163 ± 11 min | Significant |
| Complication rate | 62% | 62% | NS |
| Flap loss | 0% | 0% | — |
| Pain-free sitting | Longer | Shorter | — |
GFF is faster to elevate with comparable complication rates and zero flap loss, at the cost of slower return to pain-free sitting because the donor is in the gluteal crease.
C. Vulvar / vaginal / buttock reconstruction. Hashimoto 2001 — 14 thinned GFFs (7 vulvar, 1 vaginal, 2 buttock); all flaps survived; vessels run in a defined adipose layer permitting safe defatting / thinning.[40]
D. Ischial pressure sores — PIPAP variant. Legemate 2018 — pedicled internal pudendal artery perforator (PIPAP) flap along the gluteal fold; 27 patients (34 flaps); mean OR time 60 ± 21 min; primary donor closure in all; minor complications 9%, major requiring reoperation 27% (9% recurrent ulcer); preserves posterior thigh skin, buttock-line integrity, and the descending IGA branch.[43]
Part 4 — Gluteal Turnover Flap (BIOPEX-2 RCT)
A distinct local advancement technique — not a perforator flap. A half-moon perineal skin island is incised and deepithelialized; subcutaneous fat is dissected toward the gluteal fascia, dermis sutured to the contralateral levator remnant, then midline closure.[47]
BIOPEX-2 RCT results (Kreisel 2025, JAMA Surg; n = 175)[47]
| Outcome | Primary closure | Gluteal turnover | p |
|---|---|---|---|
| Uncomplicated wound healing at 30 d | 60% (49/82) | 55% (42/76) | NS |
| Presacral abscess | 22% (19/86) | 9% (7/78) | 0.02 |
| Percutaneous presacral drainage | 8% (7) | 1% (1) | 0.04 |
| Wound-related readmission | 21% | 13% | 0.17 |
| Perineal hernia at 12 mo | ~10–12% | ~10–12% | 0.93 |
"After primary closure, presacral abscess occurred significantly more often (22% vs 9%; P = .02), with a corresponding significant difference in percutaneous drainage (8% vs 1%; P = .04). If perineal wound dehiscence occurred after flap closure, this was more severe (median width 4 cm vs 2 cm; P = .03)." — Kreisel 2025.
Post-hoc win-ratio analysis of the BIOPEX trials — statistically significant net benefit for gluteal turnover (16.9%, 95% CI 0.1–33.2%) integrating multiple outcome measures.[48]
Comprehensive Comparison
| Feature | SGAP | IGAP | GFF / infragluteal | Gluteal turnover |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source | SGA (above piriformis) | IGA (below piriformis) | Descending IGA / internal pudendal direct cutaneous | Local subcutaneous |
| Pedicle length | 9.8 cm | 13.4 cm | 12.5 cm | N/A |
| Cutaneous territory | 69 cm² | 177 cm² | 77 cm² | Limited |
| Intramuscular dissection | Yes (unless sc-GAP) | Yes | No | No |
| Scar | Upper buttock | Gluteal crease | Gluteal fold | No visible scar |
| Sensate option | Yes (SCN) | Yes (cluneal n.) | Yes (cluneal n.) | No |
| Primary pedicled use | Sacral / lumbosacral | Perineal reconstruction | Perineal / ischial | APR perineal closure |
| Primary free use | Breast | Breast | Breast (emerging) | N/A |
| Pedicled flap survival | 92–100% | 97–100% | 97.6% | N/A |
| Free flap total loss | 1% | 3% | — | — |
| Future flap preservation | No | No | Yes | Yes |
| OR time | Moderate–long | Moderate–long | Short (70 min unilateral) | Minimal additional |
Decision Algorithm
- Perineal reconstruction after APR / exenteration — pedicled IGAP V-Y has the strongest base (Gould n = 194, 0% loss) and is equivalent to VRAM (Benedict 2023); the GFF is a faster alternative with comparable complications; the gluteal turnover flap significantly reduces presacral abscess and drainage without improving 30-day wound healing (BIOPEX-2).[31][35][46][47]
- Sacral / lumbosacral defects — pedicled SGAP (propeller / trilobed / single-unilateral variants).[18][19][20]
- Ischial pressure sores — IGAP or PIPAP / GFF (the GFF is preferred when future-flap availability matters in paraplegic patients with recurrent ulcers).[38][41][43]
- Free flap for breast — SGAP has the lowest free-flap loss (1%) but shortest pedicle; IGAP offers longer pedicle and hidden scar but higher vascular complications; PAP is increasingly preferred.[8][27][30]
- Simultaneous vaginal + perineal reconstruction — V-IGAP (70% return to sexual activity in Johal 2022); SGAP has also been used.[37][61]
See Also
- Posterior Thigh Flap
- Lotus Petal Flap
- Propeller Flap framework
- VRAM
- Gracilis
- Scrotal Reconstruction Techniques
References
1. Ahmadzadeh R, Bergeron L, Tang M, Morris SF. The superior and inferior gluteal artery perforator flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120(6):1551–1556. doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000282098.61498.ee
2. Nojima K, Brown SA, Acikel C, et al. Defining vascular supply and territory of thinned perforator flaps: part II — superior gluteal artery perforator flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118(6):1338–1348. doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000239450.92690.72
3. Georgantopoulou A, Papadodima S, Vlachodimitropoulos D, et al. The microvascular anatomy of superior and inferior gluteal artery perforator (SGAP and IGAP) flaps: a fresh cadaveric study and clinical implications. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2014;38(6):1156–1163. doi:10.1007/s00266-014-0398-z
4. Vigato E, De Antoni E, Tiengo C, et al. Radiological anatomy of the perforators of the gluteal region: the "radiosome"-based anatomy. Microsurgery. 2018;38(1):76–84. doi:10.1002/micr.30214
5. Tuinder S, Chen CM, Massey MF, Allen RJ, Van Der Huist R. Introducing the septocutaneous gluteal artery perforator flap: a simplified approach to microsurgical breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127(2):489–495. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181fed4d6
6. Rad AN, Flores JI, Prucz RB, Stapleton SM, Rosson GD. Clinical experience with the lateral septocutaneous superior gluteal artery perforator flap for autologous breast reconstruction. Microsurgery. 2010;30(5):339–347. doi:10.1002/micr.20753
7. Iida T, Isozaki Y, Numahata T, Okazaki M. Sacral defect reconstruction using a sensate superior gluteal artery perforator flap based on the superior cluneal nerves: a report of two cases. Microsurgery. 2021;41(5):468–472. doi:10.1002/micr.30714
8. Martineau J, Kalbermatten DF, Oranges CM. Safety and efficacy of the superior gluteal artery perforator (SGAP) flap in autologous breast reconstruction: systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(18):4420. doi:10.3390/cancers14184420
10. Buijtendijk JM, Zonnevylle EDH, Young-Afat DA. Superior gluteal artery perforator flap for autologous breast reconstruction: refined surgical technique, outcomes, and patient satisfaction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2025;113:547–555. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2025.11.062
11. Opsomer D, Vyncke T, Ryx M, et al. Comparing the lumbar and SGAP flaps to the DIEP flap using the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;146(3):276e–282e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000007094
12. Vanschoonbeek A, Fabre G, Nanhekhan L, Vandevoort M. Outcome after urgent microvascular revision of free DIEP, SIEA and SGAP flaps for autologous breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69(12):1598–1608. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2016.09.017
18. Moon SH, Choi JY, Lee JH, et al. Feasibility of a deepithelialized superior gluteal artery perforator propeller flap for various lumbosacral defects. Ann Plast Surg. 2015;74(5):589–593. doi:10.1097/SAP.0b013e3182a1e6c4
19. Acartürk TO, Seyhan T, Bengür FB, Erbaş VE. A single superior gluteal artery perforator flap in reconstruction of large midline sacral defects: a method for practical harvest and safe closure. Ann Plast Surg. 2022;88(3):313–318. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000002935
20. Kim JM, Lee JH, Oh DY, Moon SH. Trilobed pedicled superior gluteal artery perforator flap for lumbosacral defect coverage. Microsurgery. 2017;37(8):890–895. doi:10.1002/micr.30172
21. Zaussinger M, Pommer G, Freller K, Schmidt M, Huemer GM. Bilateral superior gluteal artery perforator (SGAP) flap: modified concept in perineal reconstruction. J Clin Med. 2024;13(13):3825. doi:10.3390/jcm13133825
22. Unal C, Yirmibesoglu OA, Ozdemir J, Hasdemir M. Superior and inferior gluteal artery perforator flaps in reconstruction of gluteal and perianal / perineal hidradenitis suppurativa lesions. Microsurgery. 2011;31(7):539–544. doi:10.1002/micr.20918
23. Windhofer C, Brenner E, Moriggl B, Papp C. Relationship between the descending branch of the inferior gluteal artery and the posterior femoral cutaneous nerve applicable to flap surgery. Surg Radiol Anat. 2002;24(5):253–257. doi:10.1007/s00276-002-0064-z
26. Granzow JW, Levine JL, Chiu ES, Allen RJ. Breast reconstruction with gluteal artery perforator flaps. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2006;59(6):614–621. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2006.01.005
27. Martineau J, Scampa M, Viscardi JA, et al. Inferior gluteal artery perforator (IGAP) flap in autologous breast reconstruction: a proportional meta-analysis of surgical outcomes. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2023;84:147–156. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2023.05.018
28. Mirzabeigi MN, Au A, Jandali S, et al. Trials and tribulations with the inferior gluteal artery perforator flap in autologous breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128(6):614e–624e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e318230c2d8
29. Levine JL, Miller Q, Vasile J, et al. Simultaneous bilateral breast reconstruction with in-the-crease inferior gluteal artery perforator flaps. Ann Plast Surg. 2009;63(3):249–254. doi:10.1097/SAP.0b013e31818c4ace
30. Murphy DC, Razzano S, Wade RG, Haywood RM, Figus A. Inferior gluteal artery perforator (IGAP) flap versus profunda artery perforator (PAP) flap as an alternative option for free autologous breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2022;75(3):1100–1107. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2021.09.043
31. Gould LE, Pring ET, Drami I, et al. Gluteal flap reconstruction following complex rectal cancer surgery: a large consecutive series of perineal wounds exploring risk factors for complications. J Surg Oncol. 2025. doi:10.1002/jso.70113
32. Hainsworth A, Al Akash M, Roblin P, et al. Perineal reconstruction after abdominoperineal excision using inferior gluteal artery perforator flaps. Br J Surg. 2012;99(4):584–588. doi:10.1002/bjs.7822
33. Khalil HH, McArthur D, Youssif S, et al. Sacroperineal reconstruction with inferior gluteal artery perforator flaps after resection of locally advanced primary and recurrent anorectal malignancy. Ann Plast Surg. 2022;89(3):306–311. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000003258
34. Thiel JT, Welskopf HL, Yurttas C, et al. Feasibility of perineal defect reconstruction with simplified fasciocutaneous inferior gluteal artery perforator (IGAP) flaps after tumor resection of the lower rectum. Cancers (Basel). 2023;15(13):3345. doi:10.3390/cancers15133345
35. Benedict KC, Songcharoen SJ, Stephens KL, et al. Comparison of inferior gluteal artery perforator flaps versus vertical rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flaps in the reconstruction of perineal wounds. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2023;84:514–520. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2023.06.020
36. Read T, Gearing P, Weymouth M, Chauhan A, Sheikh R. Perioperative risk factors and long-term outcomes using the inferior gluteal artery myocutaneous flap to reconstruct complex perineal defects. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2026. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000012817
37. Johal KS, Mishra A, Alkizwini E, et al. Immediate vaginal and perineal reconstruction after abdominoperineal excision using the inferior gluteal artery perforator flap (V-IGAP). J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2022;75(1):137–144. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2021.08.024
38. Kim YS, Lew DH, Roh TS, et al. Inferior gluteal artery perforator flap: a viable alternative for ischial pressure sores. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2009;62(10):1347–1354. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2008.03.026
39. Chrelias T, Berkane Y, Rousson E, et al. Gluteal propeller perforator flaps: a paradigm shift in abdominoperineal amputation reconstruction. J Clin Med. 2023;12(12):4014. doi:10.3390/jcm12124014
40. Hashimoto I, Nakanishi H, Nagae H, Harada H, Sedo H. The gluteal-fold flap for vulvar and buttock reconstruction: anatomic study and adjustment of flap volume. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;108(7):1998–2005. doi:10.1097/00006534-200112000-00025
41. Scheufler O, Farhadi J, Kovach SJ, et al. Anatomical basis and clinical application of the infragluteal perforator flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118(6):1389–1400. doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000239533.39497.a9
42. Zaussinger M, Tinhofer IE, Hamscha U, et al. A head-to-head comparison of the vascular basis of the transverse myocutaneous gracilis, profunda artery perforator, and fasciocutaneous infragluteal flaps: an anatomical study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143(2):381–390. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000005276
43. Legemate CM, van der Kwaak M, Gobets D, Huikeshoven M, van Zuijlen PPM. The pedicled internal pudendal artery perforator (PIPAP) flap for ischial pressure sore reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71(6):889–894. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2018.01.032
44. Winterton RI, Lambe GF, Ekwobi C, et al. Gluteal-fold flaps for perineal reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013;66(3):397–405. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2012.09.026
45. Koulaxouzidis G, Penna V, Bannasch H, et al. The adipofasciocutaneous gluteal-fold perforator flap: a versatile alternative choice for covering perineal defects. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2019;34(3):501–511. doi:10.1007/s00384-018-03222-w
46. Thiele JR, Weber J, Neeff HP, et al. Reconstruction of perineal defects: a comparison of the myocutaneous gracilis and the gluteal-fold flap in interdisciplinary anorectal tumor resection. Front Oncol. 2020;10:668. doi:10.3389/fonc.2020.00668
47. Kreisel SI, Sharabiany S, Tuynman J, et al. Perineal wound closure using gluteal turnover flap after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: the BIOPEX-2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2025;160(4):378–385. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2024.6818
48. van den Berg R, Musters GD, Kreisel SI, et al. Using a composite end-point and WIN-ratio analysis to evaluate perineal wound healing after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: further insights from the BIOPEX trials. Int J Surg. 2025. doi:10.1097/JS9.0000000000004495
61. Wagstaff MJ, Rozen WM, Whitaker IS, et al. Perineal and posterior vaginal wall reconstruction with superior and inferior gluteal artery perforator flaps. Microsurgery. 2009;29(8):626–629. doi:10.1002/micr.20663