The evolution of oncovascular pelvic surgery: A historical perspective

Pelvic exenteration surgery has evolved dramatically in recent decades and now represents the standard of care for many patients with advanced pelvic malignancy. Most recently the use of complex vascular resection and reconstructive techniques have been applied in advanced pelvic oncology surgery at specialist units and these oncovascular techniques are considered one of the frontiers in this field. This article summaries the historical evolution of oncovascular surgery in the pelvis and sets the scene for where this treatment is going. The role of vascular resection and reconstruction in curative treatment of advanced pelvic malignancy is an evolving area that is redefining the boundaries of what was historically thought possible.     

Pelvic exenteration for advanced pelvic malignancy.

Pelvic exenteration is a demanding, yet potentially curative operation, for patients with advanced pelvic cancer. The majority will present with recurrence after prior surgery and radiotherapy. After exenteration, 5-year survival is 40% to 60% in patients with gynecologic cancer as compared to 25% to 40% for patients with colorectal cancer. Physiologic age and absence of co-morbidities appear to be more important when selecting patients for exenteration than chronological age. Careful pre-operative staging, including either computed tomography (CT) scan or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), usually will identify patients with distant metastases, extrapelvic nodal disease, or disease involving the pelvic sidewall (which generally precludes surgery). The recent application of intra-operative radiotherapy or postoperative high-dose brachytherapy for patients with more advanced pelvic disease, which may include sidewall involvement, may expand the standard indications for exenteration. However, the intent of this procedure, with or without radiotherapy, should be resection of all tumor with the aim of cure since the place of palliative exenteration is controversial at best. The operative details of exenteration are presented, as are two surgical approaches to composite resection of pelvic structures in continuity with sacrectomy. Filling the pelvis with large tissue flaps, usually a rectus abdominus flap, has decreased morbidity rates, particularly with small bowel complications. Peri-operative mortality is usually 5% to 10%, and significant morbidity occurs in over 50% of patients. Restorative techniques for both urinary and gastrointestinal tracts can diminish the need for stomas and, along with vaginal reconstruction, can significantly improve quality of life for many patients after exenteration. These advances in surgery and radiotherapy help make the procedure a viable option for patients with otherwise incurable pelvic malignancy.     

Management of advanced pelvic cancer by exenteration.

AIM: To describe our results in managing locally advanced primary or recurrent pelvic malignancies. METHOD: Investigations included: clinical, laboratory, endoscopic (rectoscopy and colonoscopy) examinations, ultrasound scan, and CT scan or MRI of the abdomen and pelvis, to determine the extent of the pelvic malignancy. A careful explorative laparatomy of abdomen and pelvis was performed, followed by anterior, posterior or total pelvic exenteration. RESULTS: In the period June 1995-Jan 2002, 7 anterior, 2 posterior and 51 total pelvic exenterations were performed in 60 patients, distributed as follows: 28 for rectal cancer (12 primary, 16 recurrent), 20 for cervical cancer (9 primary, 11 recurrent) and 12 for other pelvic malignancies. The median survival time and overall 5-year survival rates were as follows: primary rectal cancer--50 months and 32%; recurrent rectal cancer--31 months and 17%; primary cervical cancer--46.4 months and 41% and recurrent cervical cancer--23.4 months and 16%. During the same period, 559 of our patients were treated for primary or recurrent rectal cancer by different types of straightforward resection. CONCLUSION: Pelvic exenteration is justifiable in cases of locally advanced primary and recurrent malignancies of rectum, cervical cancer and possibly in cases of other pelvic malignancies.     

Conservative surgery and restoration after pelvic exenteration

Pelvic exenteration can be proposed to non-metastatic patients with advanced or recurrent pelvic cancer and remains frequently the only potentially curative option in combination with others therapies. Colorectal function preservation and reconstructive procedures are useful to decrease functional and psychologic impact and postoperative morbidity. Technical procedures including urinary diversion, colorectal function preservation, vaginal reconstruction and pelvic filling are described and commented. Specific morbidity is analysed.     

Complications and survival after total pelvic exenteration

BackgroundPelvic exenteration is a procedure with high morbidity despite careful patient selection. This study investigates potential associations between perioperative markers and major postoperative complications including survival.MethodsRetrospectively collected data for 195 consecutive patients who underwent total pelvic exenteration (January 2015–February 2020) at a single tertiary university hospital were analyzed.ResultsThe 30-day mortality was 0.5%, and the rate of major postoperative complications (≥3 Clavien-Dindo) was 34.5%. Low albumin level (p = 0.02) and blood transfusion (p = 0.02) were significantly correlated with a major postoperative complication in univariate analyses. This had no impact on survival. Positive margins (p = 0.003), liver metastasis (p = 0.001) were related to poor survival in multivariate analyses for colorectal patients. A Charlson Comorbidity Index >6 (p < 0.05) was associated with poor survival in all patients.ConclusionThe occurrence of major postoperative complication does not negatively impact the overall survival. Pelvic exenteration is a potential life-prolonging operation when negative margins can be obtained, despite known risks for complications. Comorbidity is a predictor for inferior outcomes.     

Prevention and management of complications in pelvic exenteration

Pelvic exenteration is widely recognised as the gold standard of care for locally advanced tumours of the pelvis. Surgery in pursuit of curative resection comes at the cost of significant morbidity. Perioperative complications are commonplace with the majority managed without further surgical intervention.Boundaries of resection are expanding, resulting in increasing incidence of excision of major vascular structures and bone. Optimisation of patients is paramount prior to such significant surgical insult. Specialist centres with designated multidisciplinary teams should be used whenever possible. Addressing anaemia and nutrition play a significant role in prehabilitation. Intra-operatively consideration should be given to prevention of empty pelvis syndrome, perineal reconstruction, safe control of vascular structures and minimising risk of fistulae. Post-operative complications are common however employment of enhanced recovery protocols, minimally invasive surgery and opiate sparing analgesia protocols may in time lead to improvements for patients. Enteric fistulae and urine leak remain the most devastating and risk reduction strategies should be employed. Early recognition and aggressive management of complications is essential.     

The use of silicone expander and cecal transposition after pelvic exenteration.

AIMS: Describe a new approach for pelvic floor treatment employing a temporary mechanical support device with silicone expander, with or without association to cecal transposition. METHODS: From January 2000 to June 2006, 106 patients were submitted to pelvic exenteration. A retrospective evaluation was done of the last 30 patients previously submitted to total pelvic exenteration without neither urinary nor faecal sphincter preservation who latter were submitted to a pelvic floor treatment with silicone expander with or without association to cecal rotation. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were female and four male. The most common primary neoplasm site were of gynecological origin (20 cases). The median follow-up period was 12 months (0.36-38). Only one patient presented small intestine loops slipping after expander removal. No other patient had small intestine loops slippage into the pelvis, probably because of cecal transposition. All patients were submitted to a post-operative CT scan to confirm that intestinal loops remained out of the pelvis. Six patients presented pelvic hollow infection after device removal. All cases had complete resolution with local cleaning using physiological solution associated with systemic antibiotic therapy, except one who needed a trans-abdominal surgical approach. CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic floor treatment employing a temporary mechanical support device with silicone expander, associated or not to cecal transposition is a low-morbidity procedure. The most common complication is pelvic floor infection, but maintaining a cutaneous perineal hole allows easy access and treatment of possible pelvic abscesses as well as early recurrence diagnosis.     

Posterior pelvic exenteration for ovarian cancer: surgical and oncological outcomes

ObjectivePosterior pelvic exenteration (PPE) can be required to achieve complete resection in ovarian cancer (OC) patients with large pelvic disease. This study aimed to analyze morbidity, complete resection rate, and survival of PPE.MethodsNinety patients who underwent PPE in our Comprehensive Cancer Center between January 2010 and February 2021 were retrospectively identified. To analyze practice evolution, 2 periods were determined: P1 from 2010 to 2017 and P2 from 2018 to 2021.ResultsA 82.2% complete resection rate after PPE was obtained, with rectal anastomosis in 96.7% of patients. Complication rate was at 30% (grade 3 in 9 patients), without significant difference according to periods or quality of resection. In a binary logistic regression adjusted on age and stoma, only age of 51–74 years old was associated with a lower rate of complication (odds ratio=0.223; p=0.026). Median overall and disease-free survivals (OS and DFS) from initial diagnosis were 75.21 and 29.84 months, respectively. A negative impact on OS and DFS was observed in case of incomplete resection, and on DFS in case of final cytoreductive surgery (FCS: after ≥6 chemotherapy cycles). Age ≥75-years had a negative impact on DFS for new OC surgery. For patients with complete resection, OS and DFS were decreased in case of interval cytoreductive surgery and FCS in comparison with primary cytoreductive surgery.ConclusionPPE is an effective surgical measure to achieve complete resection for a majority of patients. High rate of colorectal anastomosis was achieved without any mortality, with acceptable morbidity and high protective stoma rate.     

Total pelvic exenteration with preservation of fecal continence

Total pelvic exenteration may be required in the management of locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancy. Although prolonged survival may be achieved, the morbidity of this procedure is substantial. Many of the complications associated with total pelvic exenteration are related to the perineal wound, the necessity for two cutaneous stomas, and the creation of a empty pelvis that often has been previously irradiated. In selected cases, perineal preservation with restoration of coloanal continuity may significantly reduce postoperative morbidity. We report four cases of recurrent pelvic malignancy treated by total pelvic exenteration with preservation of fecal continence. © 1993 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

A prospective investigation of pain and fatigue following pelvic exenteration

AimTo describe the long-term course of pain and fatigue in patients undergoing pelvic exenteration and to evaluate potential prognostic factors for these outcomes.DesignProspective cohort study.SettingsRoyal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia.PatientsConsecutive patients undergoing pelvic exenteration surgery between July 2008 and December 2017.Main outcome measuresPain and fatigue scores collected via SF-36v2 Health surveys pre-operatively and at eight time-points post-operatively for a period of 5-years. The course of pain and fatigue were described according to the following prognostic factors; bone resection (yes/no), cancer type (primary/recurrent), margin status (R0/R1-2) and extent of exenteration (complete/partial).Results345 of 459 eligible patients (75 %) consented to the study. The course of pain and fatigue over the 5 year follow-up was favourable. Patients undergoing pelvic exenteration with an R0 resection margin or without bone resection presented lower pain levels throughout the follow-up period. Bone resection, positive surgical margin (R1/R2) and type of cancer did not influence fatigue trajectories. Patients undergoing complete pelvic exenteration were more likely to report a higher level of pain and fatigue in the initial follow-up period, however this difference was not observed in the longer-term.ConclusionsPatients undergoing PE (Austin and Solomon, 2015) [1] can expect improvement but an incomplete recovery in the levels of pain and fatigue postoperatively over the 5-year follow-up period. Bone resection as part of exenteration demonstrated higher levels of pain and fatigue.     

Total pelvic exenteration for primary locally advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer.

AIMS: To report the role of total pelvic exenteration in a series of locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancers. METHODS: In the period 1994-2004, TPE was performed in 35 of 296 patients with primary locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer treated in the Daniel den Hoed Cancer Center; 23 of 176 with primary locally advanced and 12 of 120 with recurrent rectal cancer. All but one patient received pre-operative External Beam Radiation Therapy (EBRT). After 1997, Intra Operative Radiotherapy (IORT) was performed in case of a resection margin less than 2 mm. RESULTS: Overall major complication rates were not significantly different between patients with primary and recurrent rectal cancer (26% vs. 50%, p=0.94). The hospital mortality rate was 3%. The 5-year local control and overall survival of patients with primary locally advanced rectal cancer were 88% and 52%, respectively. In patients with recurrent rectal cancer 3-year local control and survival rates were 60% and 32%, respectively. An incomplete resection, preoperative pain and advanced Wanebo stage for recurrent cancer were negative prognostic factors for both local control and overall survival. CONCLUSION: TPE in primary locally advanced rectal cancer enables good local control and acceptable overall survival, thereby justifying the use of the procedure. Patients with recurrent rectal cancer showed a high rate of major complications, a high distant metastasis rate, and a poor overall survival.     

Total pelvic exenteration for primary and locally recurrent rectal cancer

Thirteen patients with advanced carcinoma of the lower colon and no evidence of extrapelvic metastasis were submitted to total pelvic exenteration with urinary diversion. The operative mortality rate was 7.7%. Determinate 5-year survival rate of 40% was achieved. Local recurrence of rectal cancer following abdominoperineal resection is rarely amenable to limited resection. Six patients with deeply invading recurrent lesions had pelvic exenteration combined with sacral resection. This procedure seems a reasonable treatment for palliation and the chance of cure in selected patients. CT examination of the pelvis is very valuable for the early detection and localization of recurrence.     

Total pelvic exenteration for advanced carcinoma of the lower colon

Thirteen patients with advanced carcinoma of the lower colon and no evidence of extrapelvic metastasis were submitted to total pelvic exenteration. Nine of the 13 patients had ureteral urinary diversion by the ileal segment conduit. Three had colonic conduit bladder using the terminal portion of the descending colon. One patient had bilateral uretero colonic anastomosis. The operative mortality rate was 7.7%. Determinate 5-year survival rate of 38.5% was achieved. Histological examinations of the surgical specimen revealed associated abscesses adjacent to the tumor in six cases, although the cancer extended to the bowel wall and adhered to the surrounding structures in all specimens. Total pelvic exenteration assures a better quality of life, lessening of symptoms, disease control and, in selected patients, a cure.     

Total pelvic exenteration with sacrectomy for re-recurrence of rectal cancer

A 58-year-old male had undergone low anterior resection forrectal cancer at a territorial hospital (well-differentiatedadenocarcinoma, Dukes A,