-
Colorectal Disease : the Official... Apr 2023Pelvic exenteration surgery can improve survival in people with advanced colorectal cancer. This systematic review aimed to review pain intensity and other outcomes, for... (Review)
Review
AIM
Pelvic exenteration surgery can improve survival in people with advanced colorectal cancer. This systematic review aimed to review pain intensity and other outcomes, for example the management of pain, the relationship between pain and the extent of surgery and the impact of pain on short-term outcomes.
METHOD
Electronic databases were searched from inception to 1 May 2021. We included interventional studies of adults with any indication for pelvic exenteration surgery that also reported pain outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-1.
RESULTS
The search found 21 studies that reported pain following pelvic exenteration [n = 1317 patients, mean age 58.4 years (SD 4.8)]. Ten studies were judged to be at moderate risk of bias. Before pelvic exenteration, pain was reported by 19%-100% of patients. Five studies used validated measures of pain intensity. No study measured pain at all three time points in the surgical journey. The presence of pain before surgery predicted postoperative adverse pain outcomes, and pain is more likely to be experienced in those who require wider resections, including bone resection.
CONCLUSION
Considering that pain following pelvic exenteration is commonly described by patients, the literature suggests that this symptom is not being measured and therefore addressed.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Middle Aged; Pelvic Exenteration; Pain Management; Colorectal Neoplasms; Pain, Postoperative; Retrospective Studies; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local
PubMed: 36572393
DOI: 10.1111/codi.16462 -
Gynecologic Oncology Apr 2023The aim of this study was to analyze morbidity and survival after pelvic exenteration for gynecologic malignancies and evaluate prognostic factors influencing...
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to analyze morbidity and survival after pelvic exenteration for gynecologic malignancies and evaluate prognostic factors influencing postoperative outcome.
METHODS
We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent a pelvic exenteration at the departments of gynecologic oncology of three tertiary care centers in the Netherlands, the Leiden University Medical Centre, the Amsterdam University Medical Centre, and the Netherlands Cancer Institute, during a 20-year period. We determined postoperative morbidity, 2- and 5-year overall survival (OS) and 2- and 5-year progression free survival (PFS), and investigated parameters influencing these outcomes.
RESULTS
A total of 90 patients were included. The most common primary tumor was cervical cancer (n = 39, 43.3%). We observed at least one complication in 83 patients (92%). Major complications were seen in 55 patients (61%). Irradiated patients had a higher risk of developing a major complication. Sixty-two (68.9%) required ≥1 readmission. Re-operation was required in 40 patients (44.4%). Median OS was 25 months and median PFS was 14 months. The 2-year OS rate was 51.1% and the 2-year PFS rate was 41.5%. Tumor size, resection margins and pelvic sidewall involvement had a negative impact on OS (HR = 2.159, HR = 2.376, and HR = 1.200, respectively). Positive resection margins and pelvic sidewall involvement resulted in decreased PFS (HR = 2.567 and HR = 3.969, respectively).
CONCLUSION
Postoperative complications after pelvic exenteration for gynecologic malignancies are common, especially in irradiated patients. In this study, a 2-year OS rate of 51.1% was observed. Positive resections margins, tumor size, and pelvic sidewall involvement were related to poor survival outcomes. Adequate selection of patients who will benefit from pelvic exenteration is important.
Topics: Humans; Female; Genital Neoplasms, Female; Pelvic Exenteration; Retrospective Studies; Margins of Excision; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local
PubMed: 36870097
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2023.02.010 -
California Medicine Feb 1973Pelvic exenteration offers the only possibility for cure in patients who have pelvic recurrence after receiving optimum amounts of irradiation. With improved...
Pelvic exenteration offers the only possibility for cure in patients who have pelvic recurrence after receiving optimum amounts of irradiation. With improved radiotherapy techniques, the number of patients with isolated central failure is steadily diminishing, but there remains a significant number of patients with recurrent cancer of the cervix after radiation therapy for whom the procedure offers the only chance for life. Each patient must be assessed individually, with the risks of the procedure weighed against the possible benefits. Technical advances continue to reduce the operative mortality and ameliorate the postoperative morbidity associated with pelvic exenteration.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pelvic Exenteration; Pelvic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 4701706
DOI: No ID Found -
International Journal of Radiation... Mar 2024
Topics: Humans; Pelvic Exenteration; Standard of Care; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local
PubMed: 38401973
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.11.046 -
Radiographics : a Review Publication of... 2015Pelvic exenteration is a radical surgery that is used in an attempt to cure patients with locally advanced central pelvic malignancies. Exenteration is a salvage... (Review)
Review
Pelvic exenteration is a radical surgery that is used in an attempt to cure patients with locally advanced central pelvic malignancies. Exenteration is a salvage operation that is considered only after other therapies, such as chemoradiation, have been exhausted. The high morbidity from exenteration's multiorgan resection warrants careful patient selection. Preoperative imaging plays a major role in the selection process, allowing the exclusion of patients with unresectable pelvic disease or distant metastases. Imaging is also crucial to surgical planning, providing the surgeon with a map of the distribution and extent of the pelvic disease.
Topics: Female; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Middle Aged; Pelvic Exenteration; Pelvic Neoplasms; Preoperative Care; Surgery, Computer-Assisted; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 26172363
DOI: 10.1148/rg.2015140127 -
Colorectal Disease : the Official... May 2023Pelvic exenteration surgery is an umbrella term for a multitude of operative techniques for locally advanced and recurrent pelvic malignancy. Currently, there is...
AIM
Pelvic exenteration surgery is an umbrella term for a multitude of operative techniques for locally advanced and recurrent pelvic malignancy. Currently, there is heterogeneity in the operative description that limits the interpretation of patient outcome and collaboration between units through standardized data collection. Our study aims to develop a consensus lexicon to describe the operative components of extended and exenteration pelvic surgery.
METHOD
This study adopted a mixed-methods approach using semi-structured interviews, questionnaires, focus groups and validation exercises involving pelvic exenteration experts from centres in the UK. Qualitative data were collected, and descriptive statistics are presented.
RESULTS
We identified eight headings with 32 subheadings that encompass all components of the extent of the potential surgery. The lexicon was validated by 15 UK specialists. A 'high-complexity pelvic exenteration' was defined as encompassing 'conventional pelvic exenteration' with the extension of surgery to remove bony structures or the structures in the pelvic sidewall. Pelvic sidewall structures include major vessels, sciatic nerves and/or bone. Bony structures include the sacrum and/or pubic bones.
CONCLUSION
This pelvic exenteration lexicon will permit classification of the surgical approach used that will improve data synthesis, allow more accurate activity recording for audit and ultimately improved outcomes for patients.
Topics: Humans; Pelvic Neoplasms; Pelvic Exenteration; Pelvis; Carcinoma; Surveys and Questionnaires; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36660781
DOI: 10.1111/codi.16476 -
Lancet (London, England) Feb 1995
Topics: Aged; Female; Humans; Male; Pelvic Exenteration
PubMed: 7861887
DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(95)90612-6 -
European Journal of Surgical Oncology :... Aug 2015Pelvic exenteration requires complete resection of the tumor with negative margins to be considered a curative surgery. The purpose of this review is to assess the... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Pelvic exenteration requires complete resection of the tumor with negative margins to be considered a curative surgery. The purpose of this review is to assess the optimal preoperative evaluation and surgical approach in patients with recurrent cervical cancer to increase the chances of achieving a curative surgery with decreased morbidity and mortality in the era of concurrent chemoradiotherapy.
METHODS
Review of English publications pertaining to cervical cancer within the last 25 years were included using PubMed and Cochrane Library searches.
RESULTS
Modern imaging (MRI and PET-CT) does not accurately identify local extension of microscopic disease and is inadequate for preoperative planning of extent of resection. Today, only half of pelvic exenteration procedures obtain uninvolved surgical margins.
CONCLUSION
Clear margins are required for curative pelvic exenterations, but are poorly predictable by pre-operative assessment. More extensive surgery, i.e. the infra-elevator exenteration with vulvectomy, is a logical surgical choice to increase the rate of clear margins and to improve patient survival following surgery for recurrent cervical carcinoma.
Topics: Chemoradiotherapy; Female; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Pelvic Exenteration; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 25922209
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2015.03.235 -
European Journal of Surgical Oncology :... Aug 2023Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a complex multivisceral surgical procedure indicated for locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies. It poses significant technical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparing minimally invasive surgical and open approaches to pelvic exenteration for locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies - Systematic review and meta-analysis.
INTRODUCTION
Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a complex multivisceral surgical procedure indicated for locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies. It poses significant technical challenges which account for the high risk of morbidity and mortality associated with the procedure. Developments in minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches and enhanced peri-operative care have facilitated improved long term outcomes. However, the optimum approach to PE remains controversial.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines to identify studies comparing MIS (robotic or laparoscopic) approaches for PE versus the open approach for patients with locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed systematically and a meta-analysis was conducted.
RESULTS
11 studies were identified, including 2009 patients, of whom 264 (13.1%) underwent MIS PE approaches. The MIS group displayed comparable R0 resections (Risk Ratio [RR] 1.02, 95% Confidence Interval [95% CI] 0.98, 1.07, p = 0.35)) and Lymph node yield (Weighted Mean Difference [WMD] 1.42, 95% CI -0.58, 3.43, p = 0.16), and although MIS had a trend towards improved towards improved survival and recurrence outcomes, this did not reach statistical significance. MIS was associated with prolonged operating times (WMD 67.93, 95% CI 4.43, 131.42, p < 0.00001) however, this correlated with less intra-operative blood loss, and a shorter length of post-operative stay (WMD -3.89, 955 CI -6.53, -1.25, p < 0.00001). Readmission rates were higher with MIS (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.11, 4.02, p = 0.02), however, rates of pelvic abscess/sepsis were decreased (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21, 0.95, p = 0.04), and there was no difference in overall, major, or specific morbidity and mortality.
CONCLUSION
MIS approaches are a safe and feasible option for PE, with no differences in survival or recurrence outcomes compared to the open approach. MIS also reduced the length of post-operative stay and decreased blood loss, offset by increased operating time.
Topics: Humans; Pelvic Neoplasms; Pelvic Exenteration; Pelvis; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Blood Loss, Surgical
PubMed: 37087374
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2023.04.003 -
Current Opinion in Obstetrics &... Feb 2009The present review aims to update new techniques of pelvic exenteration including minimal invasive surgery, and discuss other aspects of this radical surgery, including... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
The present review aims to update new techniques of pelvic exenteration including minimal invasive surgery, and discuss other aspects of this radical surgery, including worldwide differences.
RECENT FINDINGS
Major advances are made since the first description of pelvic exenteration and the operation is still under evolution. Explorative laparoscopy prior to exenteration is a valuable alternative to laparotomy to elect candidates for pelvic exenteration. There are considerable differences with respect to indications, contraindications, preoperative staging and adjuvant therapy after exenteration in different countries. Advances in laparoscopic instruments also led to the laparoscopic exenteration. The main limiting step of the operation is urinary diversion. New techniques of laparoscopic-assisted and robotic-assisted techniques of urinary diversion have been reported that decrease the operation time. Vascularized muscle flaps are preferred by many surgeons to fill the empty pelvis and provide an acceptable vaginal reconstruction. J-pouch seems to be a safer technique than end-to-end coloanal anastomosis for bowel reconstruction. Developments in the bioengineering tissue for pelvic reconstruction are required.
SUMMARY
Laparoscopy has the advantages of decreased blood loss, improved convalescence, lower incidence of wound infection and incisional hernia, short recovery periods, rapid return of bowel function, better pain control and improved cosmetics compared with laparotomy for pelvic exenteration. Magnification and improved visualization permits en-bloc dissection of tumor and good anastomosis technique. New techniques of urinary diversion, orthotopic neobladder and coloanal are promising.
Topics: Female; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures; Humans; Laparoscopy; Pelvic Exenteration; Urinary Diversion; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 19124997
DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0b013e32831c8436