Laparoscopic Posterior Exenteration in Advanced Gynecologic Malignant Disease

The Role of Pelvic Exenteration in Cervical Cancer: A Review of the Literature

Pelvic exenteration represents a radical procedure aimed at achieving complete tumor resection with negative margins. Although it is the only therapeutic option for some cases of advanced tumors, it is associated with several perioperative complications. We believe that careful patient selection is related to better oncologic outcomes and lower complication rates. The objectives of this review are to identify the most current indications for this intervention, suggest criteria for case selection, evaluate recommendations for perioperative care, and review oncologic outcomes and potential associated complications. To this end, an analysis of English language articles in PubMed was performed, searching for topics such as the indication for pelvic exenteration for recurrent gynecologic neoplasms selection of oncologic cases, the impact of tumor size and extent on oncologic outcomes, preoperative and postoperative surgical management, surgical complications, and outcomes of overall survival and recurrence-free survival.

Long-term outcomes of pelvic exenterations for gynecological malignancies: a single-center retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Recently, with the advancement of medical technology, the postoperative morbidity of pelvic exenteration (PE) has gradually decreased, and it has become a curative treatment option for some patients with recurrent gynecological malignancies. However, more evidence is still needed to support its efficacy. This study aimed to explore the safety and long-term survival outcome of PE and the feasibility of umbilical single-port laparoscopic PE for gynecologic malignancies in a single medical center in China.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

PE for gynecological cancers except for ovarian cancer conducted by a single surgical team in Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center between July 2014 and December 2019 were included and the data were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Forty-one cases were included and median age at diagnosis was 53 years. Cervical cancer accounted for 87.8% of all cases, and most of them received prior treatment (95.1%). Sixteen procedures were performed in 2016 and before, and 25 after 2016. Three anterior PE were performed by umbilical single-site laparoscopy. The median operation time was 460 min, and the median estimated blood loss was 600 ml. There was no perioperative death. The years of the operations was significantly associated with the length of the operation time (P = 0.0018). The overall morbidity was 52.4%, while the severe complications rate was 19.0%. The most common complication was pelvic and abdominal infection. The years of surgery was also significantly associated with the occurrence of severe complication (P = 0.040). The median follow-up time was 55.8 months. The median disease-free survival (DFS) was 17.9 months, and the median overall survival (OS) was 25.3 months. The 5-year DFS was 28.5%, and the 5-year OS was 30.8%.

CONCLUSION

PE is safe for patient who is selected by a multi-disciplinary treatment, and can be a curative treatment for some patients. PE demands a high level of experience from the surgical team. Umbilical single-port laparoscopy was a technically feasible approach for APE, meriting further investigation.

Laparoscopic posterior pelvic exenteration is safe and feasible for locally advanced primary rectal cancer in female patients: a comparative study from China PelvEx collaborative

PURPOSE

Posterior pelvic exenteration (PPE) for locally advanced rectal cancer is a technical and challenging procedure. The safety and feasibility of laparoscopic PPE remain to be determined. This study aims to compare short-term and survival outcomes of laparoscopic PPE (LPPE) with open PPE (OPPE) in female patients.

METHOD

From January 2015 to December 2020, data from 105 female patients who underwent PPE at three institutions were retrospectively analyzed. The short-term and oncological outcomes between LPPE and OPPE were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 54 cases with LPPE and 51 cases with OPPE were enrolled. The operative time (240 vs. 295 min, p = 0.009), blood loss (100 vs. 300 ml, p < 0.001), surgical site infection (SSI) rate (20.4% vs. 58.8%, p = 0.003), urinary retention rate (3.7% vs. 17.6%, p = 0.020), and postoperative hospital stay (10 vs. 13 days, p = 0.009) were significantly lower in the LPPE group. The two groups showed no significant differences in the local recurrence rate (p = 0.296), 3-year overall survival (p = 0.129), or 3-year disease-free survival (p = 0.082). A higher CEA level (HR 1.02, p = 0.002), poor tumor differentiation (HR 3.05, p = 0.004), and (y)pT4b stage (HR 2.35, p = 0.035) were independent risk factors for disease-free survival.

CONCLUSION

LPPE is safe and feasible for locally advanced rectal cancers and shows lower operative time and blood loss, fewer SSI complications, and better preservation of bladder function without compromising oncological outcomes.

Utilization and perioperative outcome of minimally invasive pelvic exenteration in gynecologic malignancies: A national study in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To examine characteristics and short-term perioperative outcomes related to minimally invasive pelvic exenteration for gynecologic malignancy.

METHODS

This comparative effectiveness study is a retrospective population-based analysis of the National Inpatient Sample from 10/2008-9/2015. Women with cervical, uterine, vaginal, and vulvar malignancies who underwent pelvic exenteration were evaluated based on the use of laparoscopic or robotic-assisted surgery. Patient demographics and intraoperative/postoperative complications related to a minimally invasive surgical approach were assessed.

RESULTS

Among 1376 women who underwent pelvic exenteration, 49 (3.6%) had the procedure performed via a minimally invasive approach. The majority of minimally invasive cases were robotic-assisted (51.0%). Women in the minimally invasive group were more likely to be old, white, have cervical/uterine cancers, and receive urinary diversion, but less frequently received vaginal reconstruction or colostomy when compared to those in the open surgery group (P < 0.05). Overall perioperative complication rates were similar between the minimally invasive and open surgery groups (79.6% versus 77.7%, P = 0.862), but the minimally invasive group had a decreased risk of high-risk complications compared to the open surgery group (adjusted-odds ratio 0.19, 95% confidence interval 0.07-0.51). Specifically, a minimally invasive approach was associated with decreased incidence of sepsis and thromboembolism compared to an open approach (P < 0.05). The minimally invasive group had a shorter length of stay (median, 9 versus 14 days) and lower total charge (median, $127,875 versus $208,591) compared to the open surgery group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Laparotomy remains the main surgical approach for pelvic exenteration for gynecologic malignancy and minimally invasive surgery was infrequently utilized during the study period in the United States. Before widely adopting this surgical approach, the utility and role of minimally invasive pelvic exenteration requires further investigation.

Laparoscopy for primary cytoreduction with multivisceral resections in advanced ovarian cancer: prospective validation. "The times they are a-changin"?

BACKGROUND

Primary cytoreduction is the mainstay of treatment for advanced ovarian cancer (AOC). We developed and prospectively evaluated an algorithm to investigate the possible role of laparoscopic primary cytoreduction (LPC) in carefully selected patients, with AOC.

METHODS

From June 2007 to July 2015, all patients with stage III-IV ovarian cancer and clinical conditions allowing aggressive surgery were candidate to primary cytoreduction with the aim of achieving residual tumor (RT) = 0. The possibility of attempting laparoscopic cytoreduction was carefully evaluated using strict selection criteria. The other patients were approached by abdominal primary cytoreduction (APC). At the end of LPC, an ultra-low pubic mini-laparotomy was performed to extract surgical specimens and to accomplish a laparoscopic hand-assisted exploration of the abdominal organs, in order to confirm complete excision of the disease.

RESULTS

Of the included 66 patients, 21 were considered eligible for LPC; the remaining 45 underwent APC. Optimal cytoreduction (i.e., RT = 0) was obtained in 95 and 88.4% in the LPC and APC groups, respectively. No intra-operative complication and 4 (19%) early post-operative complications were observed among patients who received LPC. Patients who underwent APC had 17.8 and 46.7% intra- and early post-operative complications, respectively. Median time to initiation of chemotherapy was 15 (range, 10-30) days in the LPC group and 28 (20-35) days in the APC group. After a median follow-up of 51 months, 2-year disease-free survival was 76.2% in the LPC group and 73.4% in the APC group.

CONCLUSIONS

After strict selection, a group of patients with AOC may undergo LPC with extremely high rates of optimal cytoreduction, satisfactory perioperative morbidity, a short interval to chemotherapy, and encouraging survival outcomes. Clinical trial registration NCT02980185.

Minimally invasive surgery in gynecologic oncology: a review of modalities and the literature

Minimally invasive surgery is one of the newest and most exciting areas of development in procedural medicine. This field shows tremendous potential to increase therapeutic benefit while minimizing some of the painful or dangerous side effects of surgical interventions. Minimally invasive surgery has strong historic ties to the field of gynecology and has come a long way as technology and techniques have improved. This has increasingly allowed the application of laparoscopy to more complex procedures and the treatment of gynecologic malignancies. Three laparoscopic approaches, traditional laparoscopy, robotic assisted laparoscopy and laparoendoscopic single-site surgery are reviewed here. We discuss the basic approaches to these three laparoscopic techniques, and then review their applications in gynecologic oncology. We also touch on the evidence behind outcomes associated with their use.