-
Diseases of the Colon and Rectum Jul 2017Pelvic exenteration was first described by Alexander Brunschwig in 1948 in New York as a palliative procedure for recurrent carcinoma of the cervix. Because of initially...
Pelvic exenteration was first described by Alexander Brunschwig in 1948 in New York as a palliative procedure for recurrent carcinoma of the cervix. Because of initially high rates of morbidity and mortality, the practice of this ultraradical operation was largely confined to a small number of American centers for most of the 20 century. The post-World War II era saw advances in anaesthesia, blood transfusion, and intensive care medicine that would facilitate the evolution of more radical and heroic abdominal and pelvic surgery. In the last 3 decades, pelvic exenteration has continued to evolve into one of the most important treatments for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer. This review aimed to explore the evolution of pelvic exenteration surgery and to identify the pioneering surgeons, seminal articles, and novel techniques that have led to its current status as the procedure of choice for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer.
Topics: Carcinoma; Colorectal Neoplasms; Female; History, 20th Century; History, 21st Century; Humans; Male; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Ovarian Neoplasms; Palliative Care; Pelvic Bones; Pelvic Exenteration; Pelvic Neoplasms; Perineum; Prostatic Neoplasms; Plastic Surgery Procedures; Rhabdomyosarcoma, Embryonal; Urinary Diversion; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Vaginal Neoplasms; Vulvar Neoplasms
PubMed: 28594725
DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000839 -
International Journal of Clinical... 2023The aim of this study was to explore prognostic factors, develop and internally validate a prognostic nomogram model, and predict the cancer-specific survival (CCS) of... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to explore prognostic factors, develop and internally validate a prognostic nomogram model, and predict the cancer-specific survival (CCS) of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients with pelvic exenteration (PE) treatment.
METHODS
A total of 454 EOC patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database were collected according to the inclusion criteria and randomly divided into the training ( = 317) and validation ( = 137) cohorts. Prognostic factors of EOC patients with PE treatment were explored by univariate and multivariate stepwise Cox regression analyses. A predictive nomogram was constructed based on selected risk factors. The predictive power of the constructed nomogram was assessed by the time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Kaplan-Meier (KM) curve stratified by patients' nomoscore was also plotted to assess the risk stratification of the established nomogram. In internal validation, the C index, calibration curve, and decision curve analysis (DCA) were employed to assess the discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility of the models, respectively.
RESULTS
In the training cohort, age, histological type, Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, number of examined lymph nodes, and number of positive lymph nodes were found to be independent prognostic factors of postoperative CSS. A practical nomogram model of EOC patients with PE treatment was constructed based on these selected risk factors. Time-dependent ROC curves and KM curves showed the superior predictive capability and excellent clinical stratification of the nomogram in both training and validation cohorts. In the internal validation, the C index, calibration plots, and DCA in the training and validation cohorts confirmed that the nomogram presents a high level of prediction accuracy and clinical applicability.
CONCLUSION
Our nomogram exhibited satisfactory survival prediction and prognostic discrimination. It is a user-friendly tool with high clinical pragmatism for estimating prognosis and guiding the long-term management of EOC patients with PE treatment.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Nomograms; Ovarian Neoplasms; Pelvic Exenteration; Prognosis
PubMed: 37637510
DOI: 10.1155/2023/9219067 -
Colorectal Disease : the Official... Oct 2020At presentation, 15-20% of patients with rectal cancer already have synchronous liver metastases. The aim of this study was to determine the surgical and survival...
AIM
At presentation, 15-20% of patients with rectal cancer already have synchronous liver metastases. The aim of this study was to determine the surgical and survival outcomes in patients with advanced rectal cancer who underwent combined pelvic exenteration and liver (oligometastatic) resection.
METHOD
Data from 20 international institutions that performed simultaneous pelvic exenteration and liver resection between 2007 and 2017 were accumulated. Primarily, we examined perioperative outcomes, morbidity and mortality. We also assessed the impact that margin status had on survival.
RESULTS
Of 128 patients, 72 (56.2%) were men with a median age of 60 years [interquartile range (IQR) 15 years]. The median size of the liver oligometastatic deposits was 2 cm (IQR 1.8 cm). The median duration of surgery was 406 min (IQR 240 min), with a median blood loss of 1090 ml (IQR 2010 ml). A negative resection margin (R0 resection) was achieved in 73.5% of pelvic exenterations and 66.4% of liver resections. The 30-day mortality rate was 1.6%, and 32% of patients had a major postoperative complication. The 5-year overall survival for patients in whom an R0 resection of both primary and metastatic disease was achieved was 54.6% compared with 20% for those with an R1/R2 resection (P = 0.006).
CONCLUSION
Simultaneous pelvic exenteration and liver resection is feasible, with acceptable morbidity and mortality. Simultaneous resection should only be performed where an R0 resection of both pelvic and hepatic disease is anticipated.
Topics: Adolescent; Humans; Liver Neoplasms; Male; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Pelvic Exenteration; Rectal Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32294308
DOI: 10.1111/codi.15064 -
ANZ Journal of Surgery May 2023Pelvic exenteration surgery is complex, necessitating co-ordinated multidisciplinary input and improved referral pathways. A state-wide pelvic exenteration...
BACKGROUND
Pelvic exenteration surgery is complex, necessitating co-ordinated multidisciplinary input and improved referral pathways. A state-wide pelvic exenteration multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting was established in SA and the outcomes of this were audited and compared with historical data.
METHODS
All patients referred for discussion between August 2021 and July 2022 to the SA State-wide Pelvic Exenteration MDT were included in this study. MDT discussion centred around disease resectability, risk versus benefit of surgery, and need for local or interstate referral. Prospective data collection included patient demographics and MDT recommendations of surgery, palliation, or referral. Patients referred for surgery locally or interstate were compared with a retrospective patient cohort treated previously between January and December 2020.
RESULTS
Over 12 months, 91 patients were discussed (including nine multiple times), by a mean of 18 meeting participants each month. Forty-eight patients (58.5%) had primary malignancy, 25 (30.5%) recurrent malignancy, and 9 (11.0%) had non-malignant disease. Colorectal cancer was the most common presentation (56.1%), followed by gynaecological (30.5%) and urological (6.1%) malignancy. Pelvic exenteration surgery was recommended to be performed locally in 53.7% of patients and the remainder for non-surgical treatment, palliation, or re-discussion. During this time, 44 patients underwent surgery locally (versus 34 in 2020) and only 4 referred interstate (versus 8 in 2020).
CONCLUSION
The establishment of a dedicated state-wide pelvic exenteration MDT has resulted in better coordination of care for patients with locally advanced pelvic malignancy in SA, and significantly reduced the need for interstate referral.
Topics: Humans; South Australia; Pelvic Exenteration; Retrospective Studies; Carcinoma; Patient Care Team
PubMed: 36567641
DOI: 10.1111/ans.18220 -
The Surgeon : Journal of the Royal... Dec 2023Pelvic exenteration is a radical procedure used to treat locally advanced and/or recurrent pelvic malignancies. Different reconstruction options exist, the most popular... (Review)
Review
AIM
Pelvic exenteration is a radical procedure used to treat locally advanced and/or recurrent pelvic malignancies. Different reconstruction options exist, the most popular being the end colostomy with ileal conduit. The double barrel wet colostomy (DBWC) offers concomitant fecal and urinary diversion through a single stoma, but is infrequently utilized. We aim to review the evidence base of the postoperative complications, long-term oncologic risks and quality of life following creation of a double barrel wet colostomy.
METHODS
A narrative review of the literature was performed evaluating the DBWC. Patient demographics, perioperative complications, operative variables, long terms oncologic outcomes and quality of life data were extracted. Descriptive statistics were used to define the data.
RESULTS
Fourteen articles with a total of 300 patients undergoing DBWC following pelvic exenteration were selected. 41% of malignancies were gastrointestinal in origin while 41.7% were gynecologic and 5.3% genitourinary. 42% of patients experienced at least one complication within in 40 days of surgery, the most common being wound infection (8.7%) and urinary leak (8.3%). There was no evidence of malignancy within the DBWC during long-term surveillance. Quality of life following DBWC is comparable to other reconstructive methods.
CONCLUSION
The DBWC is a well described reconstructive method for urinary and fecal diversion utilizing a single stoma following pelvic exenteration. The short- and long-term outcomes following DBWC are comparable to other reconstructive methods and the quality of life with a DBWC is acceptable. DBWC should remain a readily available option for reconstruction following pelvic exenteration.
Topics: Humans; Female; Pelvic Exenteration; Colostomy; Quality of Life; Urinary Diversion; Urinary Tract
PubMed: 37087331
DOI: 10.1016/j.surge.2023.03.004 -
Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons... Mar 2022We describe a case report of a robotic total pelvic exenteration (TPE) performed for a locally advanced rectal cancer at our institution in August 2018. Technical...
We describe a case report of a robotic total pelvic exenteration (TPE) performed for a locally advanced rectal cancer at our institution in August 2018. Technical details and comparison with published literature are discussed. A 62-year-old patient with a locally advanced low rectal cancer T4N1cM0 with extramural vascular invasion (EMVI) underwent an elective robotic pelvic clearance performed by the urology and colorectal teams. He received neoadjuvant long-course chemo-radiotherapy to downstage the rectal cancer. The primary tumour was T4N1c with involvement of the bladder (trigone area) and prostate. After neoadjuvant therapy, MRI scan showed tumour regression grade 4 (TRG4). The patient underwent single docking totally robotic pelvic clearance. Patient's body mass index (BMI) was 32. The operative time was 400 minutes with the docking time of 15 minutes. There were no intraoperative complications, and the blood loss was 100ml. Histology was ypT4b, ypN1b, ypMx with 2/9 positive lymph nodes, and there was a complete resection by >1mm at all margins. The postoperative complications were ileus and urinary tract infection. Length of stay was 11 days complicated by prolonged ileus requiring total parenteral nutrition (TPN). The 30-day follow-up had no postoperative complications or readmission. The robotic approach is safe and feasible for multiorgan resections for locally advanced pelvic cancers, with curative intent. The literature supports it by highlighting the advantages of robotic pelvic surgery: better access, stable platform, quick inter-specialty change of operator by use of dual console and superior visualisation.
Topics: Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Pelvic Exenteration; Rectal Neoplasms; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 34730433
DOI: 10.1308/rcsann.2021.0137 -
Techniques in Coloproctology Jan 2023Research on short-term outcomes and long-term oncological results of laparoscopic pelvic exenteration (LPE) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is still limited....
BACKGROUND
Research on short-term outcomes and long-term oncological results of laparoscopic pelvic exenteration (LPE) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is still limited. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of LPE and open pelvic exenteration (OPE).
METHODS
Between January 2010 and December 2019, consecutive LARC patients who underwent radical pelvic exenteration at Peking University First Hospital were enrolled. Groups were matched at a 1:1 ratio using propensity score matching. The primary endpoints were 3 year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary endpoints were postoperative short-term outcomes.
RESULTS
There were 144 patients (68 males and 76 females, median age 58.5 [range 27.0-86.0] years). After matching, patients were stratified into LPE (n = 48) and OPE (n = 48) groups (LPE: 24 males and 24 females, median age 57.0 [range 27.0-81.0] years; OPE: 26 males and 22 females, median age 58.0[range 36.0-80.0] years). There were no significant differences on baseline data between the two groups. Compared with the OPE group, the LPE group had a significantly lower estimated blood loss (200 vs 500 ml, p = 0.003), less overall postoperative complications (12/48 vs 25/48, p = 0.006), less surgical site infection (8/48 vs 20/48, p = 0.007), shorter length of stay (12 vs. 15 days, p = 0.005), but similar operative time (344 vs. 360 min, p = 0.493). The pathological R0 resection rate (98.0% vs. 93.7%, p = 0.610), 3 year local recurrence (18.4% vs. 23.5, p = 0.140), 3 year OS (74.6% vs. 65.5%, p = 0.290) and 3-year DFS (60.0% vs. 50.3%, p = 0.208) were similar between the two groups. Shorter distance from anal verge (HR = 0.92, p = 0.042), (y) pT4b (HR = 2.45, p = 0.023), (y)pN1-2 (HR = 2.42, p = 0.004) and positive CRM (HR = 6.23, p = 0.004) were independent prognostic risks for 3 year DFS.
CONCLUSIONS
LPE can be performed safely and has certain short-term advantages over OPE, most notably less blood loss and surgical site infection. However, LPE does not improve long-term oncological outcomes.
Topics: Male; Female; Humans; Adult; Middle Aged; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Pelvic Exenteration; Rectal Neoplasms; Surgical Wound Infection; Propensity Score; Retrospective Studies; Laparoscopy; Treatment Outcome; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local
PubMed: 36194310
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-022-02691-0 -
Colorectal Disease : the Official... May 2017Pelvic exenteration is a complex surgical procedure associated with considerable morbidity. Quality of life (QoL) is a crucial metric of surgical outcome. The aim of... (Review)
Review
AIM
Pelvic exenteration is a complex surgical procedure associated with considerable morbidity. Quality of life (QoL) is a crucial metric of surgical outcome. The aim of this review was to assess the QoL following pelvic exenteration for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and local recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC).
METHOD
A comprehensive search of studies published between 2000 and 2016 that examined QoL outcome following pelvic exenteration was performed. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Colorectal (FACT-C), SF-36 version 2, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30, and Brief Pain Inventory assessments from these studies were reviewed.
RESULTS
Seven studies reporting on 382 patients were included. Baseline QoL was the strongest predictor of postoperative QoL. Female gender, total pelvic exenteration with or without bone resection, and positive surgical margins were associated with a reduced QoL. In the majority of patients, QoL gradually improved between 2 and 9 months post-operation.
CONCLUSION
QoL is an important patient-reported outcome. This review highlights factors associated with reduced postoperative QoL that should be borne in mind when surgical resection is being considered.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Pelvic Exenteration; Postoperative Complications; Postoperative Period; Quality of Life; Rectal Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28267255
DOI: 10.1111/codi.13647 -
Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi =... Oct 2023To investigate the safety and efficacy of total pelvic exenteration (TPE) for treating late complications of radiation-induced pelvic injury. This was a descriptive...
To investigate the safety and efficacy of total pelvic exenteration (TPE) for treating late complications of radiation-induced pelvic injury. This was a descriptive case series study. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) confirmed radiation-induced pelvic injury after radiotherapy for pelvic malignancies; (2) late complications of radiation-induced pelvic injury, such as bleeding, perforation, fistula, and obstruction, involving multiple pelvic organs; (3) TPE recommended by a multidisciplinary team; (4) patient in good preoperative condition and considered fit enough to tolerate TPE; and (5) patient extremely willing to undergo the procedure and accept the associated risks. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) preoperative or intraoperative diagnosis of tumor recurrence or metastasis; (2) had only undergone diversion or bypass surgery after laparoscopic exploration; and (3) incomplete medical records. Clinical and follow-up data of patients who had undergone TPE for late complications of radiation-induced pelvic injury between March 2020 and September 2022 at the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University were analyzed. Perioperative recovery, postoperative complications, perioperative deaths, and quality of life 1 year postoperatively were recorded. The study cohort comprised 14 women, nine of whom had recto-vagino-vesical fistulas, two vesicovaginal fistulas, one ileo-vesical fistula and rectal necrosis, one ileo-vesical and rectovaginal fistulas, and one rectal ulcer and bilateral ureteral stenosis. The mean duration of surgery was 592.1±167.6 minutes and the median blood loss 550 (100-6000) mL. Ten patients underwent intestinal reconstruction, and four the Hartmann procedure. Ten patients underwent urinary reconstruction using Bricker's procedure and 7 underwent pelvic floor reconstruction. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 23.6±14.9 days. Seven patients (7/14) had serious postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo IIIa to IVb), including surgical site infections in eight, abdominopelvic abscesses in five, pulmonary infections in five, intestinal obstruction in four, and urinary leakage in two. Empty pelvis syndrome (EPS) was diagnosed in five patients, none of whom had undergone pelvic floor reconstruction. Five of the seven patients who had not undergone pelvic floor reconstruction developed EPS, compared with none of those who had undergone pelvic floor reconstruction. One patient with EPS underwent reoperation because of a pelvic abscess, pelvic hemorrhage, and intestinal obstruction. There were no perioperative deaths. During 18.9±10.1 months of follow-up, three patients died, two of renal failure, which was a preoperative comorbidity, and one of COVID-19. The remaining patients had gradual and significant relief of symptoms during follow-up. QLQ-C30 assessment of postoperative quality of life showed gradual improvement in all functional domains and general health at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively (all <0.05). TPE is a feasible procedure for treating late complications of radiation-induced pelvic injury combined with complex pelvic fistulas. TPE is effective in alleviating symptoms and improving quality of life. However, the indications for this procedure should be strictly controlled and the surgery carried out only by experienced surgeons.
Topics: Humans; Female; Pelvic Exenteration; Quality of Life; Retrospective Studies; COVID-19; Pelvis; Rectum; Radiation Injuries; Postoperative Complications; Intestinal Obstruction; Fistula
PubMed: 37849264
DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn441530-20230816-00053 -
Radiographics : a Review Publication of... 2015Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a radical surgical procedure used for the past 6 decades to treat locally advanced malignant diseases confined to the pelvis, particularly... (Review)
Review
Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a radical surgical procedure used for the past 6 decades to treat locally advanced malignant diseases confined to the pelvis, particularly persistent or recurrent gynecologic cancers in the irradiated pelvis. The traditional surgical technique known as total PE consists of resection of all pelvic viscera followed by reconstruction. Depending on the tumor extent, the procedure can be tailored to remove only anterior or posterior structures, including the bladder (anterior exenteration) or rectum (posterior exenteration). Conversely, more extended pelvic resection can be performed if the pelvic sidewall is invaded by cancer. Preoperative imaging evaluation with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is central to establishing tumor resectability and therefore patient eligibility for the procedure. These imaging modalities complement each other in diagnosis of tumor recurrence and differentiation of persistent disease from posttreatment changes. MR imaging can accurately demonstrate local tumor extent and show adjacent organ invasion. FDG PET/CT is useful in excluding nodal and distant metastases. In addition, FDG PET/CT metrics may serve as predictive biomarkers for overall and disease-free survival. This pictorial review describes different types of exenterative surgical procedures and illustrates the central role of imaging in accurate patient selection, treatment planning, and postsurgical surveillance.
Topics: Aged; Female; Fluorodeoxyglucose F18; Follow-Up Studies; Genital Neoplasms, Female; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Middle Aged; Multimodal Imaging; Patient Selection; Pelvic Exenteration; Positron-Emission Tomography; Prognosis; Radiopharmaceuticals; Surgery, Computer-Assisted; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26172364
DOI: 10.1148/rg.2015140313