Laterally extended endopelvic resection (LEER) is a surgical option for patients with laterally recurrent gynecological malignancies to preserve sciatic nerve function [1]. However, when a laterally recurrent tumor involves the sacrum, debulking surgery is generally abandoned because the surgical excision line is outside the standard LEER. Since its technical feasibility and oncological safety have been demonstrated, sacrectomy for recurrent rectal cancer is now considered the treatment of choice [2]. Theoretically, if complete resection is deemed possible, LEER and sacrectomy (beyond-LEER) may be the treatments of choice for recurrent gynecological malignancies. However, the technical feasibility of beyond-LEER has not been reported. In this video, we demonstrate the step-by-step procedure of laparoscopy-assisted beyond-LEER in a patient with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. The patient, with stage IVA ovarian cancer, was in complete remission after debulking surgery and chemotherapy.At the 13-month-platinum-free interval, a solitary recurrent tumor, involving the right internal iliac vessels and infiltrating the right sacral foramen (S3), was detected. Thus, second-line chemotherapy was initially introduced. During 6 months of chemotherapy, the tumor size remained unchanged and no other metastatic lesions were detected. Therefore, surgical resection was planned. Laparoscopy-assisted beyond-LEER was performed, and complete resection without tumor exposure was accomplished. No sign of recurrence 9 months post debulking surgery has been noted. This is the first report to demonstrate the technical feasibility of laparoscopy-assisted beyond-LEER. Table 1 presents a comparison with cases wherein open total pelvic exenteration with low-sacrectomy (TPES) was performed for recurrent rectal cancer. Forty-nine cases of open TPES demonstrated operation time, 11.5 hours; blood loss volume, 2,630 mL; and length of stay, 24.5 days [3]. These results are similar to the findings in our case: operation time, 11 hours; blood loss volume, 1,700 mL; and length of stay, 35 days. We suggest that the benefit of laparoscopy cannot be demonstrated because TPES is a different procedure compared with the beyond LEER.Kimura et al. [4] demonstrated that laparoscopic TPES for recurrent rectal cancer might have a benefit of reduced blood loss. The advantages of laparoscopy during our multidirectional procedure include not only the possibility of reducing blood loss but also the quick closureof abdominal wound and ease of keeping wound clean while changing patient’s position during sacrectomy. However, due to the limited case and follow up periods, further studies are required to determine the efficacy of this novel surgery and real advantage of laparoscopy.The informed consent for use of this video was taken from the patient.

OBJECTIVES: Intraoperative tumor manipulation and dissemination may possibly compromise survival of women with early-stage cervical cancer who undergo minimally-invasive radical hysterectomy (RH). The objective of the study was to examine survival related to minimally-invasive RH with a “no-look no-touch” technique for clinical stage IB1 cervical cancer. METHODS: This retrospective study compared patients who underwent total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH) with no-look no-touch technique (n=80) to those who underwent an abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH; n=83) for stage IB1 (≤4 cm) cervical cancer. TLRH with no-look no-touch technique incorporates 4 specific measures to prevent tumor spillage: 1) creation of a vaginal cuff, 2) avoidance of a uterine manipulator, 3) minimal handling of the uterine cervix, and 4) bagging of the specimen. RESULTS: Surgical outcomes of TLRH were significantly superior to ARH for operative time (294 vs. 376 minutes), estimated blood loss (185 vs. 500 mL), and length of hospital stay (14 vs. 18 days) (all, p < 0.001). Oncologic outcomes were similar between the 2 groups, including disease-free survival (DFS) (p=0.591) and overall survival (p=0.188). When stratified by tumor size (<2 vs. ≥2 cm), DFS was similar between the 2 groups (p=0.897 and p=0.602, respectively). The loco-regional recurrence rate following TLRH was similar to the rate after ARH (6.3% vs. 9.6%, p=0.566). Multiple-pelvic recurrence was observed in only 1 patient in the TLRH group. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that the no-look no-touch technique may be a useful surgical procedure to reduce recurrence risk via preventing intraoperative tumor spillage during TLRH for early-stage cervical cancer.
Cervix Uteri ; Disease-Free Survival ; Female ; Humans ; Hysterectomy ; Laparoscopy ; Length of Stay ; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures ; Operative Time ; Recurrence ; Retrospective Studies ; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms