Pelvic Exenteration - Past, Present and Future.

Background: Bearing in mind that the open procedure is already validated by multiple studies, the article aims to prove that pelvic exenteration performed in a minimally invasive fashion might offer better survival and to potentially identify prognostic factors for the outcome of these patients. Material and Methods: Data regarding past and present classifications and surgical indications are presented. Patient data were collected retrospectively. Results: The most frequent diseases treated with pelvic exenteration, in terms of the hystological type, were gynecological malignancy and squamous cell carcinoma. Recurrent pelvic disease was found in 68.2% of patients. R0 resection was achieved in 72.7% of patients in the MI group, and in 73.7% of patients in the OP group. Peri-operative morbidity was reported to be 56.6% for open surgery, and 18.1% for minimally invasive. Average DFS was 20.15 months, ranging from 1.5 to 70.3 months, while the OS was calculated to be 38.1 months (0.33 1508) up until November 2023. Conclusion: Pelvic exenteration is a continuously improving surgical procedure, open approach being favored to minimally invasive one. On the other hand, hospitalization and morbidity are reduced when choosing the latter. R0 and lymph node status are important predictors for overall survival, as well as major early postoperative complications. All in all, pelvic exenteration is still a promising surgical procedure to extend cancer patients lives.

Contemporary results from the PelvEx collaborative: improvements in surgical outcomes for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer.

AIM: The PelvEx Collaborative collates global data on outcomes following exenterative surgery for locally advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LARC and LRRC, respectively). The aim of this study is to report contemporary data from within the collaborative and benchmark it against previous PelvEx publications. METHOD: Anonymized data from 45 units that performed pelvic exenteration for LARC or LRRC between 2017 and 2021 were reviewed. The primary endpoints were surgical outcomes, including resection margin status, radicality of surgery, rates of reconstruction and associated morbidity and/or mortality. RESULTS: Of 2186 patients who underwent an exenteration for either LARC or LRRC, 1386 (63.4%) had LARC and 800 (36.6%) had LRRC. The proportion of males to females was 1232:954. Median age was 62 years (interquartile range 52-71 years) compared with a median age of 63 in both historical LARC and LRRC cohorts. Compared with the original reported PelvEx data (2004-2014), there has been an increase in negative margin (R0) rates from 79.8% to 84.8% and from 55.4% to 71.7% in the LARC and LRRC cohorts, respectively. Bone resection and flap reconstruction rates have increased accordingly in both cohorts (8.2%-19.6% and 22.6%-32% for LARC and 20.3%-41.9% and 17.4%-32.1% in LRRC, respectively). Despite this, major morbidity has not increased. CONCLUSION: In the modern era, patients undergoing pelvic exenteration for advanced rectal cancer are undergoing more radical surgery and are more likely to achieve a negative resection margin (R0) with no increase in major morbidity.

Minimally invasive total pelvic exenteration for symptomatic locally advanced prostate cancer with rectal invasion: Indications and technical considerations.

In cases of rectal invasion by locally invasive prostate cancer (LAPC) leading to severe pain or bleeding, total pelvic exenteration (TPE) is necessary. Here, we present two cases of successful minimally invasive TPE: one performed laparoscopically for local recurrence with rectal bleeding after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, and another done robotically for LAPC (clinical T4N1M0) accompanied by rectal bleeding. Medical treatments were ineffective in the latter case, and the tumor occupied a significant portion of the pelvis. We adopted a simultaneous transperineal approach and performed intracorporeal ileal conduit formation. Our cases highlight the challenging nature of minimally invasive TPE for symptomatic LAPC. Despite its complexity, these techniques prove viable and valuable in managing LAPC-related symptoms, emphasizing their practical utility in clinical settings.

Outcomes Following Pelvic Exenteration for Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer With and Without En Bloc Sacrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Extended radical resection is often the only chance of cure for locally recurrent rectal cancer. Recurrence in the posterior compartment often necessitates en bloc sacrectomy as part of pelvic exenteration to obtain clear resection margins and provide survival benefit. OBJECTIVE: To compare oncological outcomes, morbidity, and quality-of-life outcomes following pelvic exenteration with and without en bloc sacrectomy for recurrent rectal cancer. DESIGN: Comparative cohort study with retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. SETTING: This study was conducted at a high-volume pelvic exenteration center. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent pelvic exenteration for locally recurrent rectal cancer between 1994 and 2022. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall survival, postoperative morbidity, R0 resection margin, and quality-of-life outcomes. RESULTS: Of 965 patients, 305 (31.6%) underwent pelvic exenteration for locally recurrent rectal cancer. Among these patients, 64.3% were men and the median age was 62 years (range, 29-86). One hundred eighty-five patients (60.7%) underwent en bloc sacrectomy, 65 (35.1%) underwent high transection, and 119 (64.3%) had sacrectomy below S2. R0 resection was achieved in 80% of patients with sacrectomy and 72.5% of patients without sacrectomy. Sacrectomy patients experienced more postoperative complications without increased mortality. The median overall survival was 52 months; median survival was 47 months with sacrectomy and 73 months without ( p = 0.059). Quality-of-life scores were not significantly different across physical component ( p = 0.346), mental component ( p = 0.787), or Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal ( p = 0.679) scores at 24-month follow-up. LIMITATIONS: The generalizability of these findings may be limited outside of subspecialist exenteration units. Selection bias exists in a retrospective analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing pelvic exenteration with and without en bloc sacrectomy for locally recurrent rectal cancer experience similar rates of R0 resection, survival, and quality-of-life outcomes. As R0 remains the most important predictor of survival, the requirement of sacral resection should prompt referral to a subspecialist center that performs sacrectomy routinely. See Video Abstract . RESULTADOS DESPUS DE LA EXENTERACIN PLVICA PARA EL CNCER DE RECTO CON RECURRENCIA LOCAL, CON Y SIN SACRECTOMA EN BLOQUE: ANTECEDENTES:La resección radical ampliada es generalmente la única posibilidad de curación para el cáncer de recto con recurrencia local. La recurrencia en el compartimento posterior generalmente requiere sacrectomía en bloque como parte de la exenteración pélvica para obtener márgenes de resección claros y proporcionar un beneficio de supervivencia.OBJETIVO:Comparar los resultados oncológicos, de morbilidad y de calidad de vida después de la exenteración pélvica con y sin sacrectomía en bloque para el cáncer de recto recurrente.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte comparativo con análisis retrospectivo de datos recopilados prospectivamente.AMBIENTE AJUSTE:Estudio realizado en un centro de exenteración pélvica de alto volumen.PACIENTES:Aquellos sometidos a exenteración pélvica por cáncer de recto con recurrencia local entre 1994 y 2022.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Supervivencia general, morbilidad posoperatoria, margen de resección R0 y resultados de calidad de vida.RESULTADOS:305 (31,6%) de 965 pacientes se sometieron a exenteración pélvica por cáncer de recto con recurrencia local. El 64,3% de los pacientes eran hombres con una mediana de edad de 62 años (rango 29-86). 185 pacientes (60,7%) fueron sometidos a sacrectomía en bloque, 65 (35,1%) fueron sometidos a transección alta, 119 (64,3%) tuvieron sacrectomía por debajo de S2. La resección R0 se logró en el 80% de los pacientes con sacrectomía y en el 72,5% sin ella. Los pacientes de sacrectomía experimentaron más complicaciones postoperatorias sin aumento de la mortalidad. La mediana de supervivencia global fue de 52 meses, 47 meses con sacrectomía y 73 meses sin sacrectomía ( p = 0,059). Las puntuaciones de calidad de vida no fueron significativamente diferentes entre las puntuaciones del componente físico ( p = 0,346), componente mental ( p = 0,787) o la evaluación funcional de la terapia contra el cáncer - colorrectal ( p = 0,679) a los 24 meses de seguimiento.LIMITACIONES:La generalización de estos hallazgos puede estar limitada fuera de las unidades de exenteración de subespecialistas. Existe un sesgo de selección en un análisis retrospectivo.CONCLUSIONES:Los pacientes sometidos a exenteración pélvica con y sin sacrectomía en bloque por cáncer de recto con recurrencia local experimentan tasas similares de resección R0, supervivencia y resultados de calidad de vida. Como R0 sigue siendo el predictor más importante de supervivencia, la necesidad de resección sacra debe provocar la derivación a un centro subespecialista que realice sacrectomía de forma rutinaria. (Traducción-Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy ).

Long-term outcomes of pelvic exenterations for gynecological malignancies: a single-center retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Recently, with the advancement of medical technology, the postoperative morbidity of pelvic exenteration (PE) has gradually decreased, and it has become a curative treatment option for some patients with recurrent gynecological malignancies. However, more evidence is still needed to support its efficacy. This study aimed to explore the safety and long-term survival outcome of PE and the feasibility of umbilical single-port laparoscopic PE for gynecologic malignancies in a single medical center in China. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PE for gynecological cancers except for ovarian cancer conducted by a single surgical team in Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center between July 2014 and December 2019 were included and the data were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Forty-one cases were included and median age at diagnosis was 53 years. Cervical cancer accounted for 87.8% of all cases, and most of them received prior treatment (95.1%). Sixteen procedures were performed in 2016 and before, and 25 after 2016. Three anterior PE were performed by umbilical single-site laparoscopy. The median operation time was 460 min, and the median estimated blood loss was 600 ml. There was no perioperative death. The years of the operations was significantly associated with the length of the operation time (P = 0.0018). The overall morbidity was 52.4%, while the severe complications rate was 19.0%. The most common complication was pelvic and abdominal infection. The years of surgery was also significantly associated with the occurrence of severe complication (P = 0.040). The median follow-up time was 55.8 months. The median disease-free survival (DFS) was 17.9 months, and the median overall survival (OS) was 25.3 months. The 5-year DFS was 28.5%, and the 5-year OS was 30.8%. CONCLUSION: PE is safe for patient who is selected by a multi-disciplinary treatment, and can be a curative treatment for some patients. PE demands a high level of experience from the surgical team. Umbilical single-port laparoscopy was a technically feasible approach for APE, meriting further investigation.

The impact of staple transection of the dorsal venous complex and urethra on intraoperative blood loss in cooperative laparoscopic and transperineal endoscopic pelvic exenteration.

PURPOSE: While laparoscopic pelvic exenteration reduces intraoperative blood loss, dorsal venous complex bleeding during this procedure causes issues. We previously introduced a method to transect the dorsal venous complex and urethra using a linear stapler during cooperative laparoscopic and transperineal endoscopic (two-team) pelvic exenteration. The present study assessed its effectiveness in reducing intraoperative blood loss by comparing it with conventional laparoscopic pelvic exenteration. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a Japanese tertiary referral center. Eleven cases of two-team laparoscopic pelvic exenteration with staple transection of the dorsal venous complex (T-PE group) were compared to 25 cases of conventional laparoscopic pelvic exenteration (C-PE group). The primary outcome measure was intraoperative blood loss. RESULTS: There were no significant between-group differences in patient background. The mean intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the T-PE group than in the C-PE group (200 vs. 850 mL, p = 0.01). The respective mean operation time, postoperative complication rate, and R0 resection rate were similar between the T-PE and C-PE groups (636 min vs. 688 min, p = 0.36; 36% vs. 44%, p = 0.65; 100% vs. 100%, p = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Two-team laparoscopic pelvic exenteration with staple transection of the dorsal venous complex reduced intraoperative blood loss from the dorsal venous complex in a technically safe and oncologically feasible manner.

A review of functional and surgical outcomes of gynaecological reconstruction in the context of pelvic exenteration.

BACKGROUND: Radical surgical excision may be the only curative option for patients with advanced pelvic malignancy, but concerns surrounding the functional outcomes and survivorship of patients undergoing exenterative surgery remain. This is especially important in the context of vulvovaginal resection, where patients are often younger and surgery can have a profoundly negative impact on quality of life, body image and overall wellbeing. Reconstructive procedures are an important means of mitigating these adverse effects but outcomes are poorly described. AIM: To define the outcomes associated with gynaecological reconstructive procedures following pelvic exenterative surgery and to compare them with the outcomes of those patients who did not undergo reconstruction. METHODS: An international, multicentre retrospective investigation comparing the outcomes of reconstruction with no reconstruction. The protocol was prospectively registered (NCT05074069). RESULTS: 334 patients were included. 77 patients had a neovagina reconstructed, 139 patients underwent flap reconstruction and 118 were not reconstructed. Patients who underwent reconstruction had a longer operative time and hospital stay with an increased risk of minor perineal complications. Reconstruction did not confer an increased risk of surgical reintervention, and overall complication rates were equivalent. Procedure-specific major morbidity was 5.2 % and 11.5 % for neovaginal and flap reconstruction, respectively. 66 % of patients undergoing neovaginal reconstruction experienced no long term morbidity. 7 % developed neovaginal stenosis and 12 % suffered disease recurrence. CONCLUSION: Neovaginal reconstruction is safe in carefully selected patients and offers specific advantages over alternative techniques, with few patients requiring reoperation. Primary closure does not increase perineal morbidity.

Primary flap closure of perineal defects to avoid empty pelvis syndrome after pelvic exenteration in gynecologic malignancies: An old question to explore a new answer.

Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a radical oncological surgical procedure proposed in patients with recurrent or persistent gynecological cancers. The radical alteration of pelvic anatomy and of pelvic floor integrity can cause major postoperative complications. Fortunately, PE can be combined with reconstructive procedures to decrease complications and functional and support problems of pelvic floor, reducing morbility and mortality and increasing quality of life. Many options for reconstructive surgery have been described, especially a wide spectrum of surgical flaps. Different selection criteria have been proposed to select patients for primary perineal defect flap closure without achieving any strict indication of the best option. The aim of this review is to focus on technical aspects and the advantages and disadvantages of each technique, providing an overview of those most frequently used for the treatment of pelvic floor defects after PE. Flaps based on the deep inferior epigastric artery, especially vertical rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (VRAM) flaps, and gracilis flaps, based on the gracilis muscle, are the most common reconstructive techniques used for pelvic floor and vaginal reconstruction. In our opinion, reconstructive surgery may be considered in case of total PE or type II/III PE and in patients submitted to prior pelvic irradiation. VRAM could be used to close extended defects at the time of PE, while gracilis flaps can be used in case of VRAM complications. Fortunately, numerous choices for reconstructive surgery have been devised. As these techniques continue to evolve, it is advisable to adopt an integrated, multi-disciplinary approach within a tertiary medical center.

Feasibility of robotic platform to perform R0 resection for locally advanced multi-visceral pelvic malignancy: an institutional experience on outcomes of robotic pelvic exenteration.

BACKGROUND: Exenteration surgery for multi-visceral pelvic malignancy is a complex life-changing operation with high perioperative morbidity and mortality. Traditional open surgery has long been the standard approach for pelvic exenteration for achieving Ro resection which is the main aim of surgery. In the current era of minimally invasive surgery, robotic-assisted pelvic exenteration has provided a promising alternative, offering potential advantages in terms of improved oncological outcomes and enhanced postoperative recovery. This study aims to explore the feasibility of a robotic platform for locally advanced multi-visceral pelvic malignancy. METHODS: A retrospective review from the prospectively maintained robotic colorectal surgery database at University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire (UHCW) Trust was performed. Demographic details and clinical and surgical details were documented from the case records. Data was analysed using SPSS version 22. RESULTS: Thirteen female patients diagnosed with primary or recurrent pelvic malignancy who underwent robotic pelvic exenteration at UHCW between February 2019 and April 2023 at UHCW were included. The mean age of our patients was 60.4 (± 10.1) years. Complete Ro resection was achieved in all 13 (100%) cases on final histopathology. The median length of hospital stay was 15 days after this extensive surgery. Grade 3 morbidity on Clavien-Dindo classification was observed in four (30.7%) patients, while zero percent 30-day mortality was experienced in this study. At a median follow-up of 21 (3-53) months, we observed tumor recurrence in three (23.7%) patients, while death in four (30.7%) patients. Only few studies have highlighted outcomes of robotic pelvic exenteration, and our results were quite comparable to them. CONCLUSION: Robotic-assisted pelvic exenteration for primary or recurrent pelvic malignancy is feasible with improved oncological and acceptable postoperative outcomes.

Modular Pelvic Exenteration for Advanced Rectal Cancer in Frozen Pelvis.

BACKGROUND Surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer with frozen pelvis is challenging. Therefore, we designed the "modular pelvic exenteration" surgical strategy to achieve better radical resection. CASE REPORT A 51-year-old man with rectal cancer refused surgery and received chemotherapy and radiotherapy. He was intolerant to chemotherapy and did not respond well to radiotherapy. With cancer progression, he presented at our hospital with emaciation, fatigue, dysuria, bloody urine, bloody stool, and anal pain. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging revealed the rectal tumor involved multiple adjacent organs and caused rectovesical fistula, bilateral hydronephrosis, hydroureterosis, and local pelvic infection. The rectal tumor was fixed in the pelvic cavity, presenting a frozen pelvis pattern. There was no distant metastasis. As the patient could not tolerate chemotherapy, was unsuitable for immune-check point inhibitor because the tumor had microsatellite stability, and did not respond well to radiotherapy, surgical resection seemed the most suitable treatment option. After the patient's anemia and malnutrition improved, our designed modular pelvic exenteration surgery was performed. In this strategy, we divided pelvic organs and tissues into 4 independent modules. After combining the modules planned to be resected, we delineated the pre-resection margin. By this strategy, the tumor was removed en bloc, with a clear resection margin. The patient was discharged 13 days after the operation, without complications. Follow-up for 24 months revealed no signs of tumor recurrence. CONCLUSIONS For locally advanced rectal cancer with frozen pelvis, the modular pelvic exenteration strategy may help to achieve satisfactory surgical effects in selected patients.

Delivering complex surgical services: lessons learned from the evolution of a specialised pelvic exenteration centre.

Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a potentially curative, ultra-radical surgical procedure for the treatment of advanced pelvic tumours, which involves surgical resection of multiple pelvic organs. Delivering such a complex low-volume, high-cost surgical program presents a number of unique health management challenges, and requires an organisation-wide approach involving both clinical and administrative teams. In contrast to the United Kingdom and France, where PE services have been historically decentralised, a centralised approach was developed early on in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) with referral of these complex patients to a small number of quaternary centres. The PE program at the authors' institution was established in 1994 and has since evolved into the highest volume PE centre in the ANZ region and the largest single institution experience globally. These achievements have required navigation of specific funding and management issues, supported from inception by a proactive and collaborative relationship with hospital administration and management. The comprehensive state-wide quaternary referral model that has been developed has subsequently been successfully applied to other complex surgical services at the authors' institution, as well as by more recently established PE centres in Australia. This article aims to summarise the authors' experience with establishing and expanding this service and the lessons learned from a health management perspective.

Feasibility of transanal minimally invasive surgery for total pelvic exenteration for advanced primary and recurrent pelvic malignancies.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to clarify the efficacy and safety of transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) for total pelvic exenteration (TPE) in advanced primary and recurrent pelvic malignancies. METHODS: Using a prospectively collected database, we retrospectively analyzed the clinical, surgical, and pathological outcomes of TAMIS for TPE. Surgery was performed between September 2019 and April 2023. The median follow-up period was 22 months (2-45 months). RESULTS: Fifteen consecutive patients were included in this analysis M:F = 14:1 and median (range) age was 63 (36-74). Their diagnoses were as follows: primary rectal cancer (n = 5; 33%), recurrent rectal cancer (n = 4; 27%), primary anorectal cancer (n = 5; 33%), and gastrointestinal stromal tumor (n = 1; 7%). Bladder-sparing TPE was selected for two patients (13%). In nine of 15 patients (60%) the anal sphincter could be successfully preserved, five patients (33%) required combined resection of the internal iliac vessels, and two (13%) required rectus muscle flap reconstruction. The median operative time was 723 min (561-1082), and the median intraoperative blood loss was 195 ml (30-1520). The Clavien-Dindo classifications of the postoperative complications were as follows: grade 0-2 (n = 11; 73%); 3a (n = 3; 20%); 3b (n = 1; 7%); and ≥ 4 (n = 0; 0%). No cases of conversion to laparotomy or mortality were observed. The pathological results demonstrated that R0 was achieved in 14 patients (93%). CONCLUSIONS: The short-term outcomes of this initial experience proved that this novel approach is feasible for TPE, with low blood loss, acceptable postoperative complications, and a satisfactory R0 resection rate.

[Pelvic exenteration for late complications of radiation-induced pelvic injury: a preliminary study].

Objective: To investigate the safety and efficacy of total pelvic exenteration (TPE) for treating late complications of radiation-induced pelvic injury. Methods: 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. Results: 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 P<0.05). Conclusions: 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.

Impact of geographical health disparities on outcomes following pelvic exenteration at a centralised quaternary referral centre.

INTRODUCTION: Pelvic exenteration (PE) is an ultra-radical procedure performed for primary or recurrent malignancies confined to the pelvis. Health outcomes for rural Australian populations are generally inferior compared to those from metropolitan centres, however, the effect of geographical location on outcomes following PE is poorly defined. The aim of this study was to investigate how geographical location affects oncological, quality of life (QoL) and survival outcomes following PE. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing PE between 1994 and 2022 at a single centre were included. Patient post codes were linked with the Australian Statistical Geography Standard Remoteness Structure to stratify patients into five groups based on the geographical location of their residence. Primary outcome measures included patient survival, QoL and oncological outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 953 patients were included, of which 626 (65.7%) were from major cities, 227 (23.8%) inner regional, 84 (8.8%) outer regional, 9 (0.9%) remote, and 7 (0.7%) very remote areas. Rural patients were more likely to undergo PE for primary rectal cancer (p = 002) and less likely for recurrent, non-rectal carcinoma (p = 0.027). Rural patients less frequently had health insurance (p < 0.001) but were more likely to have undergone neoadjuvant radiotherapy (p = 0.022). No difference in length-of-admission, in-hospital complication rates, QoL at 36 months or survival was observed between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite geographical disparities, rural populations undergoing PE achieved equally favourable outcomes as populations from metropolitan areas. Enhancing access to specialised care may facilitate better outcomes of patients residing in regional and remote areas.

Abordaje robótico de la exenteración pélvica masculina. Sistematización de la técnica / Robotic pelvic exenteration in males: Systematization of the technique

La exenteración pélvica masculina es un procedimiento complejo con elevada morbilidad. En casos muy seleccionados, el abordaje robótico puede facilitar la disección y reducir la morbilidad gracias a la mejor visión y versatilidad de movimientos. Describimos la técnica de exenteración pélvica robótica sistematizada con DaVinci Xi y sus variantes en varones, tras haber intervenido tres casos en nuestro Centro. Describimos la colocación de trocares, material necesario, localización de minilaparotomía y secuencia de los procedimientos a realizar paso a paso. Distinguimos tres supuestos: exenteración pélvica total con amputación de recto, colostomía y urostomía; exenteración pélvica con preservación de esfínter, anastomosis colo-rectal/anal y urostomía; exenteración pélvica con amputación de recto, colostomía y reconstrucción de tracto urinario. (AU)

Male pelvic exenteration is a challenging procedure with high morbidity. In very selected cases robotic approach could make dissection easier and decrease morbidity due to a better view and higher range of movements. In this paper we describe port placement, instruments, minilaparotomy location and sequence of procedures step by step. We differentiate three situations: total pelvic exenteration with abdominoperineal resection, colostomy and urostomy; pelvic exenteration with colo-rectal/anal anastomosis and urostomy; pelvic exenteration with abdominoperineal resection, colostomy and urinary tract reconstruction. (AU)

Improving Surgical Outcomes in Pelvic Exenteration Surgery: Comparison of Prone Sacrectomy With Anterior Cortical Sacrectomy Techniques.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of changing our sacrectomy approach from prone to anterior on surgical and oncological outcomes. BACKGROUND: In patients with advanced pelvic malignancy involving the sacrum, pelvic exenteration (PE) with en-bloc sacrectomy is the only potential curative option but morbidity is high. Over time sacrectomy techniques have evolved from prone sacrectomy (PS) to abdominolithotomy sacrectomy (ALS, ≤S3) and high anterior cortical sacrectomy (HACS, >S3) to optimize surgical outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective, single institution analysis of prospectively collected data for patients undergoing PE with en-bloc sacrectomy between 1994 and 2021 was performed. RESULTS: A total of 363 patients were identified and divided into PS (n=77, 21.2%), ALS (n=247, 68.0%), and HACS (n=39, 10.7%). Indications were: locally advanced (n=92) or recurrent (n=177) rectal cancer, primary other (n=31), recurrent other (n=60), and benign disease (n=3). PS resulted in longer operating time ( P <0.01) and more blood loss ( P <0.01). Patients with HACS had more major nerve (87.2%) and vascular (25.6%) resections ( P <0.01). Vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap repair was less common following HACS (7.7%) than ALS (25.5%) and PS (27.3%) ( P =0.040). R0 rate was 80.8%, 65.8%, and 76.9% following ALS, PS, and HACS, respectively ( P =0.024). Wound-related complications and re-operations were significantly reduced following ALS and HACS compared with PS. CONCLUSIONS: Changing our practice from PS to an anterior approach with ALS or HAS has been safe and improved overall surgical and perioperative outcomes, while maintaining good oncological outcomes. Given the improved perioperative and surgical outcomes, it would be important for surgeons to learn and adopt the anterior sacrectomy approaches.

Robotic pelvic exenteration in males: systematization of the technique.

Male pelvic exenteration is a challenging procedure with high morbidity. In very selected cases, the robotic approach could make dissection easier and decrease morbidity due to the better vision provided and higher range of movements. In this paper, we describe port placement, instruments, minilaparotomy location, and the stepwise sequence of these procedures. We address 3 different situations: total pelvic exenteration with abdominoperineal resection, colostomy and urostomy; pelvic exenteration with colorectal/anal anastomosis and urostomy; and pelvic exenteration with abdominoperineal resection, colostomy and urinary tract reconstruction.