Objective: To investigate the surgical indications and perioperative clinical outcomes of pelvic exenteration (PE) for locally advanced, recurrent pelvic malignancies and complex pelvic fistulas. Methods: This was a descriptive study.The indications for performing PE were: (1) locally advanced, recurrent pelvic malignancy or complex pelvic fistula diagnosed preoperatively by imaging and pathological examination of a biopsy; (2)preoperative agreement by a multi-disciplinary team that non-surgical and conventional surgical treatment had failed and PE was required; and (3) findings on intraoperative exploration confirming this conclusion.Contraindications to this surgical procedure comprised cardiac and respiratory dysfunction, poor nutritional status,and mental state too poor to tolerate the procedure.Clinical data of 141 patients who met the above criteria, had undergone PE in the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University from January 2018 to September 2022, had complete perioperative clinical data, and had given written informed consent to the procedure were collected,and the operation,relevant perioperative variables, postoperative pathological findings (curative resection), and early postoperative complications were analyzed. Results: Of the 141 included patients, 43 (30.5%) had primary malignancies, 61 (43.3%) recurrent malignancies, 28 (19.9%) complex fistulas after radical resection of malignancies,and nine (6.4%)complex fistulas caused by benign disease. There were 79 cases (56.0%) of gastrointestinal tumors, 30 cases (21.3%) of reproductive tumors, 16 cases (11.3%) of urinary tumors, and 7 cases (5.0%) of other tumors such mesenchymal tissue tumors. Among the 104 patients with primary and recurrent malignancies, 15 patients with severe complications of pelvic perineum of advanced tumors were planned to undergo palliative PE surgery for symptom relief after preoperative assessment of multidisciplinary team; the other 89 patients were evaluated for radical PE surgery. All surgeries were successfully completed. Total PE was performed on 73 patients (51.8%),anterior PE on 22 (15.6%),and posterior PE in 46 (32.6%). The median operative time was 576 (453,679) minutes, median intraoperative blood loss 500 (200, 1 200) ml, and median hospital stay 17 (13.0,30.5)days.There were no intraoperative deaths. Of the 89 patients evaluated for radical PE surgery, the radical R0 resection was achieved in 64 (71.9%) of them, R1 resection in 23 (25.8%), and R2 resection in two (2.2%). One or more postoperative complications occurred in 85 cases (60.3%), 32 (22.7%)of which were Clavien-Dindo grade III and above.One patient (0.7%)died during the perioperative period. Conclusion: PE is a valid option for treating locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies and complex pelvic fistulas.
Humans ; Pelvic Exenteration/methods* ; Pelvic Neoplasms/surgery* ; Retrospective Studies ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/surgery* ; Postoperative Complications

No abstract available.
Female ; Humans ; Hysterectomy/*methods ; Neoplasms, Glandular and Epithelial/*pathology/*surgery ; Ovarian Neoplasms/*pathology/*surgery ; Pelvic Exenteration/*methods

Objective: To explore the feasibility, safety, and short- and long-term efficacy of laparoscopic pelvic exenteration (LPE) in treating locally advanced rectal cancer. Methods: The clinical data of 173 patients who had undergone pelvic exenteration (PE) for locally advanced rectal cancer that had been shown by preoperative imaging or intraoperative exploration to have invaded beyond the mesorectal excision plane and adjacent organs in the Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (n=64) and Peking University First Hospital (n=109) from 2010 January to 2021 December were collected retrospectively. Laparoscopic PE (LPE) had been performed on 82 of these patients and open PE (OPE) on 91. Short- and long-term outcomes (1-, 3-, and 5-year overall and disease-free survival and 1- and 3-year cumulative local recurrence rates) were compared between these groups. Results: The only statistically significant difference in baseline data between the two groups (P>0.05) was administration of neoadjuvant therapy. Compared with OPE, LPE had a significantly shorter operative time (319.3±129.3 minutes versus 417.3±155.0 minutes, t=4.531, P<0.001) and less intraoperative blood loss (175 [20-2000] ml vs. 500 [20-4500] ml, U=2206.500, P<0.001). The R0 resection rates were 98.8% and 94.5%, respectively (χ²=2.355, P=0.214). At 18.3% (15/82), and the incidence of perioperative complications was lower in the LPE group than in the OPE group (37.4% [34/91], χ²=7.727, P=0.005). The rates of surgical site infection were 7.3% (6/82) and 23.1% (21/91) in the LPE and OPE group, respectively (χ²=8.134, P=0.004). The rates of abdominal wound infection were 0 and 12.1% (11/91) (χ²=10.585, P=0.001), respectively, and of urinary tract infection 0 and 6.6% (6/91) (χ²=5.601, P=0.030), respectively. Postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the LPE than OPE group (12 [4-60] days vs. 15 [7-87] days, U=2498.000, P<0.001). The median follow-up time was 40 (2-88) months in the LPE group and 59 (1-130) months in the OPE group. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates were 91.3%, 76.0%, and 62.5%, respectively, in the LPE group, and 91.2%, 68.9%, and 57.6%, respectively, in the OPE group. The 1, 3, and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 82.8%, 64.9%, and 59.7%, respectively, in the LPE group and 76.9%, 57.8%, and 52.7%, respectively, in the OPE group. The 1- and 3-year cumulative local recurrence rates were 5.1% and 14.1%, respectively, in the LPE group and 8.0% and 15.1%, respectively, in the OPE group (both P>0.05). Conclusions: In locally advanced rectal cancer patients, LPE is associated with shorter operative time, less intraoperative blood loss, fewer perioperative complications, and shorter hospital stay compared with OPE. It is safe and feasible without compromising oncological effect.
Humans ; Pelvic Exenteration/methods* ; Retrospective Studies ; Treatment Outcome ; Blood Loss, Surgical ; Laparoscopy/methods* ; Rectal Neoplasms/surgery*

Locally advanced tumor with involvement of surrounding tissues and organs is a common situation in pelvic malignancies. Up to 10% of newly diagnosed rectal cancer cases infiltrate to adjacent tissues and organs. Satisfactory resection margins obtained by pelvic exenteration can achieve a 5-year survival rate similar to cases that without adjacent tissue invasion. The 5-year survival rate of patients with locally recurrent pelvic malignancies is almost zero if they are treated only with radiotherapy and chemotherapy. To obtain negative margins through pelvic exenteration is the only chance for a long-term survival of these patients. However, pelvic exenteration is a complicated procedure with higher morbidity and mortality. The development of fascia anatomy enables surgeons to have a deeper understanding and comprehensive application of pelvic fasciae. Meanwhile, the improvement of laparoscopic technology provides a clearer view for surgeons and enables the application of minimally invasive techniques in complex pelvic exenteration. The fascial space priority approach is based on the fascia anatomy of pelvis and giving priority to the separation of the pelvic avascular fascial spaces, which provides a reproducible surgical approach for complex pelvic exenteration.
Humans ; Pelvic Exenteration/methods* ; Pelvic Neoplasms ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/surgery* ; Rectal Neoplasms/surgery* ; Pelvis/pathology* ; Retrospective Studies

Female ; Genital Neoplasms, Female ; surgery ; Humans ; Laparoscopy ; methods ; Pelvic Exenteration ; methods ; Postoperative Complications ; Robotic Surgical Procedures ; methods

OBJECTIVETo evaluate the methods of surgery for extraperitoneal pelvic neoplasms.

METHODSClinical data related to surgery of 84 cases of extraperitoneal pelvic neoplasms were extracted and retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTSAll 84 patients underwent operations, including one of them who received 4 operations within 6 months for resection of a single tumor. 58 abdominal, 16 buttock and 10 combined incisions were made in the series. Pelvic organs and structures were co-resected in 35 cases, including total pelvic exenteration in 2 cases and anterior pelvic exenteration in 2 cases. Common and/or external iliac vessels were resected and transplantations of artificial vessel were carried in 5 cases. Internal iliac arteries were ligated in 10 cases. The mean blood lose was 2 385 ml in our series and the largest was 15 000 ml. The complete resection rate of tumor was 81% for 84 operations and the largest resected tumor was 30 cm x 30 cm x 25 cm. There was no hospitalized death, and postoperative complication rate was 7% (6/84) in our series. Only 1 death were seen during the mean period of postoperative follow-up of 54 months, 22 operations were carried for 21 cases of recurrence, including 7 operations for 7 recurrences in a case within 12 years.

CONCLUSIONSMaking adequate abdominal or/and buttock incisions, exenterations of involved pelvic organs and structures, total pelvic exenteration if necessary, appropriate management of iliac vessels, planned re-operation for one tumor, and re-operation for recurrences are important methods for the treatment of extraperitoneal pelvic neoplasms.

Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Child ; Child, Preschool ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Pelvic Exenteration ; methods ; Pelvic Neoplasms ; pathology ; surgery ; Reoperation ; Retrospective Studies ; Vascular Surgical Procedures ; methods

The majority of patients with recurrent cervical cancer are incurable and treatment is based on the type of primary therapy delivered. Only a very small percentage of the patients with recurrent cervical cancer following primary radiotherapy will have central pelvic recurrences that are amenable to surgical resection and curable by pelvic exenteration. These procedures should be undertaken only after the completion of exhaustive attempts to exclude extrapelvic disease.
Cervix Neoplasms/drug therapy/mortality/*surgery ; Female ; Human ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/drug therapy/mortality/*surgery ; Pelvic Exenteration/adverse effects/methods

In recent years, with advances in pelvic oncology and surgical techniques, surgeons have redefined the boundaries of pelvic surgery. Combined pelvic exenteration is now considered the treatment of choice for some patients with locally advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer, but it is only performed in a few hospitals in China due to the complexity of the procedure and the large extent of resection, complications, and high perioperative mortality. Although there have been great advances in oncologic drugs and surgical techniques and equipment in recent years, there are still many controversies and challenges in the preoperative assessment of combined pelvic organ resection, neoadjuvant treatment selection and perioperative treatment strategies. Adequate understanding of the anatomical features of the pelvic organs, close collaboration of the clinical multidisciplinary team, objective assessment and standardized preoperative combination therapy creates the conditions for radical surgical resection of recurrent and complex locally advanced rectal cancer, while the need for rational and standardized R0 resection still has the potential to bring new hope to patients with locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer.
Humans ; Pelvic Exenteration/methods* ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/surgery* ; Rectum/surgery* ; Rectal Neoplasms/surgery* ; Pelvis/surgery* ; Treatment Outcome ; Retrospective Studies

The development of robotic technology has facilitated the application of minimally invasive techniques for the treatment and evaluation of patients with early, advanced, and recurrent cervical cancer. The application of robotic technology for selected patients with cervical cancer and the data available in the literature are addressed in the present review paper. The robotic radical hysterectomy technique developed at the Mayo Clinic Arizona is presented with data comparing 27 patients who underwent the robotic procedure with 2 matched groups of patients treated by laparoscopic (N = 31), and laparotomic radical hysterectomy (N = 35). A few other studies confirmed the feasibility and safety of robotic radical hysterectomy and comparisons to either to the laparoscopic or open approach were discussed. Based on data from the literature, minimally invasive techniques including laparoscopy and robotics are preferable to laparotomy for patients requiring radical hysterectomy, with some advantages noted for robotics over laparoscopy. A prospective randomised trial is currently being perfomred under the auspices of the American Association of Gyneoclogic Laparoscopists comparing minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (laparoscopy or robotics) with laparotomy. For early cervical cancer radical parametrectomy and fertility preserving trachelectomy have been performed using robotic technology and been shown to be feasible, safe, and easier to perform when compared to the laparoscopic approach. Similar benefits have been noted in the treatment of advanced and recurrent cervical cancer where complex procedures such as extraperitoneal paraortic lymphadenectomy and pelvic exenteration have been required. CONCLUSION: Robotic technology better facilitates the surgical approach as compared to laparoscopy for technically challenging operations performed to treat primary, early or advanced, and recurrent cervical cancer. Although patient advantages are similar or slightly improved with robotics, there are multiple advantages for surgeons.
Female ; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures/*methods ; Humans ; Hysterectomy/methods ; Lymph Node Excision/methods ; Pelvic Exenteration/methods ; Robotics/*methods ; Surgical Procedures, Minimally Invasive/methods ; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/*surgery

With the development of existing surgical techniques, equipment and treatment concepts, more and more medical centers begin to carry out extensive resection for recurrent pelvic malignant tumors or those with multivisceral invasion. Exenteration may facilitate curative resection and improve the outcome of the patients. Therefore, pelvic exenteration has gradually become the standard of care for locally advanced pelvic malignancies. At present, pelvic exenteration leads to high intraoperative and postoperative complications and mortality, and therefore compromise the safety and long-term quality of life. Cumulating evidences suggest remnant cavity after exenteration might trigger the pathophysiological process and cause downstream complications which can be defined as empty pelvis syndrome. The literature related to empty pelvic syndrome was summarized, the possible cause of empty pelvic syndrome was analyzed. After the pelvic exenteration, the closed pelvic residual cavity formed continuous negative pressure with the gradual absorption of air in the cavity, bacterial propagation, and accumulation of fluid, which had an impact on the distribution of organs in the abdominal and pelvic cavity. At the same time, whether physical processes also play a role in the occurrence of empty pelvic syndrome remains to be explored. It is concluded that the diagnosis is mainly based on the patient's medical history, clinical manifestations and radiological findings, and the history of pelvic exenteration is the most important indicator in the diagnosis. In terms of prevention measures, we should identify the high-risk groups of the occurrence of empty pelvic syndrome, and then take accurate and individualized preventive measures. Various new biomaterials have more advantages in preventive pelvic cavity filling than traditional human tissue filling. Mesentery plays an important role in the morphology, peristalsis and arrangement of the small intestine. More attention should be paid to reducing the ectopic placement of the small intestine into the pelvic cavity by protecting the mesentery structure and restoring or rebuilding the mesentery morphology. In terms of treatment measures, there is still a lack of standard treatment pathway for empty pelvic syndrome.
Humans ; Quality of Life ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/surgery* ; Pelvis/surgery* ; Pelvic Exenteration/methods* ; Pelvic Neoplasms ; Postoperative Complications/etiology* ; Retrospective Studies ; Treatment Outcome