-
European Journal of Surgical Oncology :... Oct 2019Palliative pelvic exenteration (PPE) is a technically complex operation with high morbidity and mortality rates, considered in patients with limited life expectancy....
OBJECTIVE
Palliative pelvic exenteration (PPE) is a technically complex operation with high morbidity and mortality rates, considered in patients with limited life expectancy. There is little evidence to guide practice. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the impact of PPE on symptom relief and quality of life (QoL).
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines using Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASe, and PubMed databases for studies reporting on outcomes of PPE for symptom relief or QoL. Descriptive statistics were used on pooled patient cohorts.
RESULTS
Twenty-three historical cohorts and case series were included, comprising 509 patients. No comparative studies were found. Most malignancies were of colorectal, gynaecological and urological origin. Common indications for PPE were pain, symptomatic fistula, bleeding, malodour, obstruction and pelvic sepsis. The pooled median postoperative morbidity rate was 53.6% (13-100%), the median in-hospital mortality was 6.3% (0-66.7%), and median OS was 14 months (4-40 months). Some symptom relief was reported in a median of 79% (50-100%) of the patients, although the magnitude of effect was poorly measured. Data for QoL measures were inconclusive. Five studies discouraged performing PPE in any patient, while 18 studies concluded that the procedure can be considered in highly selected patients.
CONCLUSION
Available evidence on PPE is of low-quality. Morbidity and mortality rates are high with a short median OS interval. While some symptom relief may be afforded by this procedure, evidence for improvement in QoL is limited. A highly selective individualised approach is required to optimise the risk:benefit equation.
Topics: Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Palliative Care; Patient-Centered Care; Pelvic Exenteration; Pelvic Neoplasms
PubMed: 31255441
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2019.06.011 -
Techniques in Coloproctology Nov 2018Pelvic exenteration represents the best treatment option for cure of locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer. This systematic review sought to evaluate current...
BACKGROUND
Pelvic exenteration represents the best treatment option for cure of locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer. This systematic review sought to evaluate current literature regarding short and long term treatment outcomes and long term survival following pelvic exenteration.
METHODS
A systematic search of the MEDLINE, PubMed and Ovid databases was conducted to identify suitable articles published between 2001 and 2016. The article search was performed in line with Cochrane methodology and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses statement.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies were included in the final analysis, incorporating 1016 patients. Sixty-three percent of patients were male and median patient age was 59 years. Median operating time was 7.2 h with median blood loss of 1.9 l. Median postoperative stay was 17 days with a median 30-day mortality of 0. Complication rates were 31.6-86% with a return to theatre rate of 14.6%. Median R0 resection rate was 74% and was higher for primary cancer (82.6% versus 58% for recurrent cancer). Mean overall survival was 31 months and median 5-year survival was 32%. Recurrently identified indicators of adverse outcome included R1/2 resection, preoperative pelvic pain and previous abdominoperineal resection of the rectum.
CONCLUSIONS
Pelvic exenteration remains a major operation associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite advances in preoperative assessment and staging, R1 resection rates remain high. There is also a high degree of variability of reporting outcomes and standardisation of this process would aid comparison of results between centres and drive forward research in this area.
Topics: Blood Loss, Surgical; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Operative Time; Pelvic Exenteration; Pelvis; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Survival Rate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30506497
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-018-1883-1 -
Minimally invasive surgery techniques in pelvic exenteration: a systematic and meta-analysis review.Surgical Endoscopy Dec 2018Pelvic exenteration is potentially curative for locally advanced and recurrent pelvic cancers. Evolving technology has facilitated the use of minimally invasive surgical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pelvic exenteration is potentially curative for locally advanced and recurrent pelvic cancers. Evolving technology has facilitated the use of minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques in selected cases. We aimed to compare outcomes between open and MIS pelvic exenteration.
METHODS
A review of comparative studies was performed. Firstly, we evaluated the differences in surgical techniques with respect to operative time, blood loss, and margin status. Secondly, we assessed differences in 30-day morbidity and mortality rates, and length of hospital stay.
RESULTS
Four studies that directly compared open and MIS exenteration were included. Analysis was performed on 170 patients; 78.1% (n = 133) had open pelvic exenteration, while 21.8% (n = 37) had a MIS exenteration. The median age for open exenteration was 57.7 years versus 63 years for MIS exenteration. Even though the operative time for MIS exenteration was 83 min longer (p < 0.001), it was associated with a median of 1,750mls less blood loss. The morbidity rate for MIS exenterative group was 56.7% (n = 21/37) versus 88.5% (n = 85/96) in the open exenteration group, with pooled analysis observing a 1.17 relative risk increase in 30-day morbidity (p = 0.172) in the open exenteration group. In addition, the MIS cohort had a 6-day shorter length of hospital stay (p = 0.04).
CONCLUSION
MIS exenteration can be performed in highly selective cases, where there is favourable patient anatomy and tumour characteristics. When feasible, it is associated with reduced intra-operative blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay, and reduced morbidity.
Topics: Humans; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Neoplasm Staging; Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care; Patient Selection; Pelvic Exenteration; Pelvic Neoplasms
PubMed: 30019221
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-018-6299-5 -
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 -
Diseases of the Colon and Rectum Mar 2017The management of recurrent rectal cancer is challenging. At the present time, pelvic exenteration with en bloc sacrectomy offers the only hope of a lasting cure. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The management of recurrent rectal cancer is challenging. At the present time, pelvic exenteration with en bloc sacrectomy offers the only hope of a lasting cure.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcome measures and complication rates following sacrectomy for recurrent rectal cancer.
DATA SOURCES
A search was conducted on Pub Med for English language articles relevant to sacrectomy for recurrent rectal cancer with no time limitations.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies reported sacrectomy with survival data for recurrent rectal adenocarcinoma.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE
Disease-free survival following sacrectomy for recurrent rectal cancer was the main outcome measured.
RESULTS
A total of 220 patients with recurrent rectal cancer were included from 7 studies, of which 160 were men and 60 were women. Overall median operative time was 717 (570-992) minutes and blood loss was 3.7 (1.7-6.2) L. An R0 (>1-mm resection margin) resection was achieved in 78% of patients. Disease-free survival associated with R0 resection was 55% at a median follow-up period of 33 (17-60) months; however, none of the patients with R1 (<1-mm resection margin) survived this period. Postoperative complication rates and median length of stay were found to decrease with more distal sacral transection levels. In contrast, R1 resection rates increased with more distal transection.
LIMITATION
The studies assessed by this review were retrospective case series and thus are subject to significant bias.
CONCLUSION
Sacrectomy performed for patients with recurrent rectal cancer is associated with significant postoperative morbidity. Morbidity and postoperative length of stay increase with the level of sacral transection. Nevertheless, approximately half of patients eligible for rectal excision with en bloc sacrectomy may benefit from disease-free survival for up to 33 months, with R0 resection predicting disease-free survival in the medium term.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Disease-Free Survival; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Pelvic Exenteration; Rectal Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies; Sacrum
PubMed: 28177998
DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000737 -
Annals of Surgery Feb 2017The aim of this study was to assess resection margin status and its impact on survival after abdominoperineal excision and pelvic exenteration for primary or recurrent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to assess resection margin status and its impact on survival after abdominoperineal excision and pelvic exenteration for primary or recurrent rectal cancer.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
Resection margin is important to guide therapy and to evaluate patient prognosis.
METHODS
A meta-analysis was performed to assess the impact of resection margin status on survival, and a regression analysis to analyze positive resection margin rates reported in the literature.
RESULTS
The analysis included 111 studies reporting on 19,607 participants after abdominoperineal excision, and 30 studies reporting on 1326 participants after pelvic exenteration. The positive resection margin rates for abdominoperineal excision were 14.7% and 24.0% for pelvic exenteration. The overall survival and disease-free survival rates were significantly worse for patients with positive compared with negative resection margins after abdominoperineal excision [hazard ratio (HR) 2.64, P < 0.01; HR 3.70, P < 0.01, respectively] and after pelvic exenteration (HR 2.23, P < 0.01; HR 2.93, P < 0.01, respectively). For patients undergoing abdominoperineal excision with positive resection margins, the reported tumor sites were 57% anterior, 15% posterior, 10% left or right lateral, 8% circumferential, 10% unspecified. A significant decrease in positive resection margin rates was identified over time for abdominoperineal excision. Although positive resection margin rates did not significantly change with the size of the study, some small size studies reported higher than expected positive resection margin rates.
CONCLUSIONS
Resection margin status influences survival and a multidisciplinary approach in experienced centers may result in reduced positive resection margins. For advanced anterior rectal cancer, posterior pelvic exenteration instead of abdominoperineal excision may improve resection margins.
Topics: Abdomen; Humans; Margins of Excision; Pelvic Exenteration; Perineum; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27537531
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001963 -
International Urogynecology Journal Jan 2017Neovaginal prolapse (NP) is a rare event as few cases have been reported in the literature. Its management is complex and depends on the initial pathology, the... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS
Neovaginal prolapse (NP) is a rare event as few cases have been reported in the literature. Its management is complex and depends on the initial pathology, the vaginoplasty technique and the patient's history. We present a review the literature on this rare event.
METHODS
We describe the case of a 72-year-old woman who presented with NP 1 year after pelvic exenteration and radiotherapy for recurrent cervical carcinoma associated with vaginal reconstruction by shaped-tube omentoplasty. She had undergone two previous surgical procedures (posterior sacrospinous ligament suspension and partial colpocleisis), but NP recurred each time within a few months. We performed an anterior approach to the sacrospinous ligament and inserted a mesh under the anterior wall of the neovagina, with the two mesh arms driven through the sacrospinous ligament in a tension-free manner (Uphold Lite® system). The MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials and OpenGrey databases were systematically searched for literature on the management of NP following bowel vaginoplasty, mechanical dilatation, graciloplasty, omentoplasty, rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap and the Davydov procedure.
RESULTS
The postoperative course in the patient whose case is described was uneventful and after 1 year of follow-up, the anatomical results and patient satisfaction were good. The systematic search of the databases revealed several studies on the treatment of NP using abdominal and vaginal approaches, and these are reviewed.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, sacrocolpopexy would appear to be a good option for the treatment of prolapse after bowel vaginoplasty, but too few cases have been reported to establish this technique as the standard management of NP.
Topics: Aged; Carcinoma; Female; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Pelvic Exenteration; Postoperative Complications; Plastic Surgery Procedures; Sacrum; Surgical Mesh; Treatment Outcome; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Uterine Prolapse; Vagina
PubMed: 27038991
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-016-3009-5 -
European Journal of Surgical Oncology :... Aug 2016Pelvic exenteration is a radical operative treatment reserved for the management of a number of advanced primary and recurrent pelvic malignancies, including, rectal,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pelvic exenteration is a radical operative treatment reserved for the management of a number of advanced primary and recurrent pelvic malignancies, including, rectal, gynaecological and urological. The advances in radiological staging, surgical techniques and greater use of chemotherapeutic agents haves translated clinically into improvements in the overall survival of this cohort of patients, irrespective of underlying disease pathology. Consequently, a greater proportion of the surviving population will present to healthcare professionals with a range of physical and psychological issues, therefore the profiling and understanding of the health-related quality of life (HrQoL) is integral to the long term management of this cohort of patients. The aim of this systematic review is to identify HrQoL themes from the current literature relevant to patients undergoing a pelvic exenteration.
METHODS
Literature searches were performed in three databases: MEDLINE (1975-November 2015), EMBASE and CINAHL. Each study was evaluated with regards to its design and statistical methodology. Data quality was reviewed in accordance with the Newcastle-Ottowa score and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklist (CAPS) for quantitative and qualitative data accordingly. A narrative synthesis of all identified HrQoL issues was undertaken using the principles of content analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 24 studies were identified; 20 quantitative and 4 qualitative with 976 patients assessed in total. HrQoL was assessed as the main primary endpoint in 15 studies. The majority of studies were retrospective. Baseline data prior to the initiation of treatments were available in 6 studies alone. Nine themes were identified across the literature, which included body image, social impact, sexual function, treatment expectations, symptoms, communication, psychological impact, relationships and work and finance.
CONCLUSIONS
Pelvic exenteration has a wide ranging impact on patients HrQoL affecting a range of physical and psychological domains.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Employment; Female; Genital Neoplasms, Female; Health Status; Humans; Interpersonal Relations; Male; Mental Health; Pelvic Exenteration; Quality of Life; Rectal Neoplasms; Reproductive Health; Role; Social Participation; Urologic Neoplasms
PubMed: 26968226
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.01.007 -
Journal de Gynecologie, Obstetrique Et... Apr 2016The purpose of this review is to assess the preoperative management in case of recurrent cervical cancer, to assess patients for a surgical curative treatment. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this review is to assess the preoperative management in case of recurrent cervical cancer, to assess patients for a surgical curative treatment.
METHODS
English publications were searched using PubMed and Cochrane Library.
RESULTS
In the purpose of curative surgery, pelvic exenteration required clear margins. Today, only half of pelvic exenteration procedures showed postoperative clear margins. Modern imaging (RMI and Pet-CT) does not allow defining local extension of microcopic disease, and thus postoperative clear margins. Despite the same generic term of pelvic exenteration, there is a wide heterogeneity in surgical procedures in published cohorts.
CONCLUSION
Because clear margins are required for curative pelvic exenteration, but are not predictable by preoperative assessment. The larger surgery, i.e. the infra-elevator exenteration with vulvectomy, could be the logical surgical choice to increase the rate of clear margins and therefore, recurrent cervical carcinoma patient survival.
Topics: Carcinoma; Female; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Pelvic Exenteration; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 26874666
DOI: 10.1016/j.jgyn.2016.01.004 -
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery May 2016Abdominoperineal resection and pelvic exenteration for resection of malignancies can lead to large perineal defects with significant surgical-site morbidity.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Abdominoperineal resection and pelvic exenteration for resection of malignancies can lead to large perineal defects with significant surgical-site morbidity. Myocutaneous flaps have been proposed in place of primary closure to improve wound healing. A systematic review was conducted to compare primary closure with myocutaneous flap reconstruction of perineal defects following abdominoperineal resection or pelvic exenteration with regard to surgical-site complications.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library databases. After data extraction from included studies, meta-analysis was performed to compare outcome parameters defining surgical-site complications of flap and primary closure.
RESULTS
Our systematic review yielded 10 eligible studies (one randomized controlled trial and nine retrospective studies) involving 566 patients (226 flaps and 340 primary closures). Eight studies described rectus abdominis myocutaneous flaps and two studies used gracilis flaps. In meta-analysis, primary closure was more than twice as likely to be associated with total perineal wound complications compared with flap closure (OR, 2.17; 95 percent CI, 1.34 to 3.14; p = 0.001). Rates of major perineal wound complications were also significantly higher in the primary closure group (OR, 3.64; 95 percent CI, 1.43 to 7.79; p = 0.005). There was no statistically significant difference between primary and flap closure for minor perineal wound complications, abdominal hernias, length of stay, or reoperation rate.
CONCLUSIONS
This is the first systematic review with meta-analysis comparing primary closure with myocutaneous flap closure for pelvic reconstruction. The authors' results have validated the use of myocutaneous flaps for reducing perineal morbidity following abdominoperineal resection or pelvic exenteration.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Therapeutic, II.
Topics: Anus Neoplasms; Female; Genital Neoplasms, Female; Genital Neoplasms, Male; Gracilis Muscle; Hernia, Abdominal; Humans; Length of Stay; Male; Myocutaneous Flap; Pelvic Exenteration; Perineum; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Plastic Surgery Procedures; Rectus Abdominis; Reoperation; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome; Wound Healing
PubMed: 26796372
DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000002107