Sacrococcygeal sinus angle: as a new anatomic landmark for the posterior approach of presacral lesions

Safety and effectiveness of a posterior approach alone for surgical treatment of sacral-presacral tumors

Aim

We aimed to examine the safety and effectiveness of a posterior approach alone in the surgical treatment of sacral-presacral tumors. In addition, we investigate factors that determine the selection of a posterior approach alone.

Materials and Methods

Patients with sacral-presacral tumors who underwent surgery in our institution between 2007 and 2019 were examined in this study. Data regarding patient age, gender, tumor size (>6 cm and <6 cm), tumor localization (below or above S1), tumor pathology (benign or malignant), surgical approach (anterior alone, posterior alone, or combined), and extent of resection were recorded. The Spearman's correlation analyses were conducted between surgical approach and tumor size, localization, and pathology. Factors influencing the extent of resection were also examined.

Results

Complete tumor resection was achieved in 18 of 20 patients. A posterior approach alone was used in 16. No strong or significant relation was detected between surgical approach and tumor size (r = 0.218; P = 0.355). There was no strong or significant relationship between surgical approach and tumor localization (r = 0.145; P = 0.541) or tumor pathology (r = 0.250; P = 0.288). Tumor size, localization, and pathology were not independent factors that determined surgical approach. The only significant independent determining factor for incomplete resection was tumor pathology (r = 0.688; P = 0.001).

Conclusion

A posterior approach is safe and effective in the surgical treatment of sacral-presacral tumors independent of tumor localization, size, or pathology and is a feasible first-line treatment option.

Management approach and surgical strategies for retrorectal tumours: a systematic review

AIM

The management strategy for retrorectal tumours is complex. Due to their rarity, few surgeons have expertise in management.

METHOD

A systematic literature review was conducted using the PubMed database. English language publications in the years 2011-2015 that assessed preoperative management, surgical strategies and chemoradiotherapy for presacral tumours were included. Two hundred and fifty-one abstracts were screened of which 88 met the inclusion criteria. After review of the full text, this resulted in a final list of 42 studies eligible for review.

RESULTS

In all, 932 patients (63.2% female, 36.8% male; P < 0.01) with a retrorectal tumour were identified. Most were benign (65.9% vs. 33.7%, P < 0.01). Imaging distinguished benign from malignant lesions in 88.1% of cases; preoperative biopsy was superior to imaging in providing an accurate definitive diagnosis (91.3% vs. 61.4%, P < 0.05) with negligible seeding risk. Biopsy should be performed in solid tumours. It is useful in guiding neoadjuvant therapy for gastrointestinal stromal tumours, sarcomas and desmoid type fibromatosis and may alter the management strategy in cases of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and metastases. Biopsies for cystic lesions are not recommended. The gold standard in imaging is MRI. The posterior Kraske procedure is the most common surgical approach. Overall, the reported recurrence rate was 19.7%.

CONCLUSION

This review evaluated the management strategies for retrorectal tumours. A preoperative biopsy should be performed for solid tumours. MRI is the most useful imaging modality. Surgery is the mainstay of treatment. There is limited information on robotic surgery, single-port surgery, transanal endoscopic microsurgery, chemoradiotherapy and reconstruction.