Transsacral exenteration of fixed primary and recurrent anorectal cancer

Pain, pain management and related outcomes following pelvic exenteration surgery: a systematic review

AIM

Pelvic exenteration surgery can improve survival in people with advanced colorectal cancer. This systematic review aimed to review pain intensity and other outcomes, for example the management of pain, the relationship between pain and the extent of surgery and the impact of pain on short-term outcomes.

METHOD

Electronic databases were searched from inception to 1 May 2021. We included interventional studies of adults with any indication for pelvic exenteration surgery that also reported pain outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-1.

RESULTS

The search found 21 studies that reported pain following pelvic exenteration [n = 1317 patients, mean age 58.4 years (SD 4.8)]. Ten studies were judged to be at moderate risk of bias. Before pelvic exenteration, pain was reported by 19%-100% of patients. Five studies used validated measures of pain intensity. No study measured pain at all three time points in the surgical journey. The presence of pain before surgery predicted postoperative adverse pain outcomes, and pain is more likely to be experienced in those who require wider resections, including bone resection.

CONCLUSION

Considering that pain following pelvic exenteration is commonly described by patients, the literature suggests that this symptom is not being measured and therefore addressed.

Implementation of a peri-operative pain-management algorithm reduces the use of opioid analgesia following pelvic exenteration surgery

AIM

This study aimed to investigate the implementation and pain-related outcomes of a peri-operative pain-management regimen for patients undergoing pelvic exenteration surgery at a university teaching hospital.

METHOD

This is a single-site prospective observational cohort study involving 100 patients who underwent pelvic exenteration surgery between January 2017 and December 2018. A pain-management algorithm regarding the use of opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia was developed between the departments of anaesthesia, pain management and intensive care. The primary outcomes were: compliance with a pain-treatment algorithm compared with a similar retrospective surgical patient cohort in 2013-2014; and requirements for regular doses of opioid analgesia at discharge, measured in oral morphine equivalent daily dose (oMEDD).

RESULTS

Following the introduction of a pain-management algorithm, regional anaesthesia techniques (spinal anaesthesia, transversus abdominus plane block, preperitoneal catheters or epidural analgesia) were used in 83/98 (84.7%) of the 2017-2018 cohort compared with 13/73 (17.8%) of the 2013-2014 cohort (p < 0.001). There was a reduction in the median dose of opioid analgesics (oMEDD) at time of discharge, from 150 mg (interquartile range [IQR]: 75.0-235.0 mg) in the 2013-2014 cohort to 10 mg (IQR: 0.00-45.0 mg) in the 2017-2018 cohort (p < 0.001). There was no change in pain intensity (assessed using the Verbal Numerical Rating Score) or oMEDD in the first 7 days following surgery.

CONCLUSION

Since implementation of a novel peri-operative pain-treatment algorithm, the use of opioid-sparing regional techniques and preperitoneal catheters has increased. Additionally, the dose of opioids required at the time of discharge has reduced significantly.

Patient-reported outcomes after pelvic exenteration for colorectal cancer: A systematic review

AIM

Pelvic exenteration (PE) carries high morbidity. Our aim was to analyse the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in PE patients.

METHOD

Search strategies were protocolized and registered in PROSPERO. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched with the terms 'patient reported outcomes', 'pelvic exenteration' and 'colorectal cancer'. Studies published after 1980 reporting on PROMs for at least 10 PE patients were considered. Study selection, data extraction, rating of certainty of evidence (GRADE) and risk of bias (ROBINS-I) were performed independently by two reviewers.

RESULTS

Nineteen of 173 studies were included (13 retrospective, six prospective). All studies were low to very low quality, with an overall moderate/serious risk of bias. Studies included data on 878 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (n = 344), recurrent rectal cancer (n = 411) or cancer of unknown type (n = 123). Thirteen studies used validated questionnaires, four used non-validated measures and two used both. Questionnaires included the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal questionnaire (n = 6), Short Form Health Survey (n = 6), European Organization for Research and Treatment for Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (n = 6), EORTC-CR38 (n = 4), EORTC-BLM30 (n = 1), Brief Pain Inventory (n = 2), Short Form 12 (n = 1), Assessment of Quality of Life (n = 1), Short Form Six-Dimension (n = 1), the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Sphincter Function Scale (n = 1), the Cleveland Global Quality of Life (n = 1) or other (n = 4). Timing varied between studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Whilst the use of validated questionnaires increased over time, this study shows that there is a need for uniform use and timing of PROMs to enable multicentre studies.

Pelvic Exenteration Surgery: The Evolution of Radical Surgical Techniques for Advanced and Recurrent Pelvic Malignancy

Pelvic exenteration was first described by Alexander Brunschwig in 1948 in New York as a palliative procedure for recurrent carcinoma of the cervix. Because of initially high rates of morbidity and mortality, the practice of this ultraradical operation was largely confined to a small number of American centers for most of the 20 century. The post-World War II era saw advances in anaesthesia, blood transfusion, and intensive care medicine that would facilitate the evolution of more radical and heroic abdominal and pelvic surgery. In the last 3 decades, pelvic exenteration has continued to evolve into one of the most important treatments for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer. This review aimed to explore the evolution of pelvic exenteration surgery and to identify the pioneering surgeons, seminal articles, and novel techniques that have led to its current status as the procedure of choice for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer.

Efficacy of an additional flap operation in bladder-preserving surgery with radical prostatectomy and cystourethral anastomosis for rectal cancer involving the prostate

Purpose

Sphincter-preserving operations performed with bladder-preserving surgery and a cystourethral anastomosis (CUA) do not require a urinary stoma, but leakage from the CUA may develop. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of performing an additional flap operation.

Methods

The subjects were 39 patients who underwent bladder-preserving surgery for advanced rectal cancer involving the prostate, between 2001 and 2015.32 of whom had a CUA and one of whom had a neobladder. Five of these 32 patients underwent an ileal flap operation, 2 underwent an omental flap operation, and 3 underwent an operation using both flaps.

Results

Leakage developed in 3 (30%) of the 10 patients who underwent additional flap operations, but in 14 (60.9%) of the 23 patients who did not undergo a flap operation. The mean periods of catheterization for the patients who suffered leakage were 31 weeks (8–108 weeks) in those without a flap and 16 weeks (8–20 weeks) in those with a flap. Four (33.3%) of the 12 patients with leakage after surgery without a flap had a period of urinary catheterization >30 weeks, and 2 (16.7%) had leakage of CTCAE grade 3. There were no cases of leakage after flap surgery.

Conclusion

An additional flap operation may decrease the risk of leakage from a CUA.

Pelvic exenteration for rectal cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Pelvic exenteration is a potentially curative treatment for locally advanced primary or recurrent rectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review examines the current evidence regarding clinical and oncological outcomes in patients with locally advanced primary and recurrent rectal cancer who undergo pelvic exenteration.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search of PubMed, Medline, and the Cochrane library was undertaken, and studies published in the English language from January 2000 to August 2012 were identified.

STUDY SELECTION

Prospective and retrospective studies that report outcomes of pelvic exenteration for primary advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer with or without subgroup evaluation were included for examination.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Oncological outcomes included 5-year survival, median survival, and local recurrence rates. Clinical outcomes included complication rates and perioperative mortality rates.

RESULTS

A total of 23 studies with 1049 patients were reviewed. The complication rates ranged from 37% to 100% (median, 57%) and the perioperative mortality rate ranged from 0% to 25% (median, 2.2%). The rate of local recurrence ranged from 4.8% to 61% (median, 22%). The median survival for primary advanced rectal cancers was 14 to 93 months (median, 35.5 months) and 8 to 38 months (median, 24 months) for locally recurrent rectal cancer.

LIMITATIONS

Our review was limited by the small sample sizes from single-institutional studies reporting outcomes over long periods of time with heterogeneity in both the disease and treatments reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the human costs and risks are significant, the potentially favorable survival outcomes make this acceptable in the absence of other effective treatment modalities that would otherwise result in debilitating symptoms that afflict patients who have advanced pelvic malignancy.

Surgery for local recurrence of rectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

Despite improvement in management of primary rectal cancer, 2.6-32% of patients develop local recurrence. A proportion of these patients can be amenable to salvage surgery. The present article reviews the evidence for and against the surgical management for local recurrence of rectal cancer, the role of adjuvant and intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT), and evaluates short and long-term outcomes.

METHOD

A literature search was performed using Medline, Embase, Ovid and Cochrane database for studies between 1980 and 2005 assessing surgical management of local recurrence of rectal cancer and the evidence was critically evaluated.

RESULTS

Nearly 50% of rectal cancer recurrences are local and are therefore potentially amenable to curative resection. Preoperative imaging is important for appropriate selection of patients for surgery and preoperative adjuvant therapy is essential. Five-year survival following resection ranges from 18% to 58% with 5-year survival following complete resection of over 35% though morbidity ranges from 21% to 82%. Neoadjuvant radiotherapy is beneficial and IORT may have a contributory role in treatment. Aggressive surgical treatment favourably affects quality of life and is cost effective. Surgery for local recurrence can result in significant long-term survival with acceptable morbidity and improved quality of life in appropriately selected patients. Assessment in a specialist centre familiar with these techniques is essential.