[Laparoscopic pelvic exenteration for cervical cancer relapse: preliminary study]

Robotic Pelvic Exenteration for Gynecologic Malignancies, Anatomic Landmarks, and Surgical Steps: A Systematic Review

Pelvic exenteration represents the last resort procedure for patients with advanced primary or recurrent gynecological malignancy. Pelvic exenteration can be divided into different subgroup based on anatomical extension of the procedures. The growing application of the minimally invasive surgical approach unlocked new perspectives for gynecologic oncology surgery. Minimally invasive surgery may offer significant advantages in terms of perioperative outcomes. Since 2009, several Robotic Assisted Laparoscopic Pelvic Exenteration experiences have been described in literature. The advent of robotic surgery resulted in a new spur to the worldwide spread of minimally invasive pelvic exenteration. We present a review of the literature on robotic-assisted pelvic exenteration. The search was conducted using electronic databases from inception of each database through June 2021. 13 articles including 53 patients were included in this review. Anterior exenteration was pursued in 42 patients (79.2%), 2 patients underwent posterior exenteration (3.8%), while 9 patients (17%) were subjected to total exenteration. The most common urinary reconstruction was non-continent urinary diversion (90.2%). Among the 11 women who underwent to total or posterior exenteration, 8 (72.7%) received a terminal colostomy. Conversion to laparotomy was required in two cases due to intraoperative vascular injury. Complications' report was available for 51 patients. Fifteen Dindo Grade 2 complications occurred in 11 patients (21.6%), and 14 grade 3 complications were registered in 13 patients (25.5%). Only grade 4 complications were reported (2%). In 88% of women, the resection margins were negative. Pelvic exenteration represents a salvage procedure in patients with recurrent or persistent gynecological cancers often after radiotherapy. A careful patient selection remains the milestone of such a mutilating surgery. The introduction of the minimally invasive approach has led to advantages in terms of perioperative outcomes compared to classic open surgery. This review shows the feasibility of robotic pelvic exenteration. An important step forward should be to investigate the potential equivalence between robotic approaches and the laparotomic one, in terms of long-term oncological outcomes.

Our Experience of Laparoscopic Anterior Exenteration in Locally Advanced Cervical Carcinoma

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To show the feasibility, technique, and results of laparoscopic anterior exenteration in selected patients.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Galaxy Care Laparoscopy Institute, Pune, India.

PATIENTS

Seventy-four of 85 patients who underwent laparoscopic anterior exenteration for stage IVA carcinoma of the cervix from January 2005 to January 2015 were analyzed; the median follow-up was 30 months. Contrast-enhanced computed tomographic imaging of the abdomen and pelvis was performed for all patients.

INTERVENTIONS

The same surgeon and team performed all the operations for uniformity in 10 operative steps.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The mean operative time was 180 minutes, and the mean blood loss was 160 mL. The mean hospital stay was 6 days. The average number of lymph nodes removed was 21.4. Surgical margins were negative in all patients. Forty-two patients had positive lymph nodes. Chemoradiation was given to those with positive lymph nodes. Perioperative complications occurred in 15 (20.27%) patients including deep vein thrombosis, urinary tract infection, ureterosigmoid leak (n = 2/74), and so on. Positron emission tomographic imaging and computed tomographic scanning were performed at 6 months after surgery and 6 months after adjuvant therapy in those with positive lymph nodes. There was no immediate postoperative mortality. The overall survival rate at 5 years was 25%.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic anterior exenteration is feasible in cases of advanced carcinoma of the cervix. Results have shown that in selected patients this procedure is associated with good long-term survival.

Laparoscopic total pelvic exenteration for pelvic malignancies: the technique and short-time outcome of 11 cases

BACKGROUND

Previous reports about laparoscopic total pelvic exenteration (LTPE) are still limited. In the present study, we described our single-center experience of the initial 11 cases.

METHODS

Between April 2011 and September 2015, eight males and three females diagnosed as pelvic malignancies underwent LTPE by the same operation team. We retrospectively collected all cases' parameters about surgical technique. Thirty-seven patients who received open surgery were also retrospectively collected. A comparison between LTPE and open surgery was performed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of LTPE.

RESULTS

Eleven cases successfully underwent the LTPE without any intraoperative complication. No open conversion was required. Eight patients underwent Bricker's procedure. Three patients were performed with the cutaneous ureterostomy. Anus preservation operation was performed in three patients. Compared with open surgery, LTPE had longer mean operative time (565.2 vs 468.2 min, p = 0.004) but less mean blood loss (547.3 vs 1033.0 ml, p < 0.001) and shorter postoperative hospitalization time (15.3 vs 22.4 days, p = 0.004). One patient died of pulmonary embolism in the 7th month of follow-up time. One patient died of recurrence in the 12th month of follow-up time. Nine patients are still alive without recurrence and metastasis. The mean follow-up time was 11.1 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The technique of LTPE seems to be feasible and safe in the treatment of carefully selected patients of pelvic malignancies. LTPE can also decrease the blood loss, the recovery time, and the hospital stay. But the oncological safety and long-term outcome of LTPE still need to be explored.

Laparoscopic anterior exenteration with intracorporeal uretero-sigmoidostomy

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate the feasibility of laparoscopic anterior exenteration with intracorporeal ureterosigmoidostomy.

DESIGN

After Institutional Review Board approval was obtained, patients who had undergone laparoscopic anterior exenteration with intracorporeal ureterosigmoidostomy were analyzed.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fifty-seven patients with advanced cervical carcinoma, stage IV A, since 2005 were analyzed retrospectively. The preoperative workup was done with contrast-enhanced computed tomography abdomen-pelvis and positron emission tomography (PET) scans. Patients were analyzed for operative time, blood loss, and complications. Patient follow-up was done monthly for the first 3 months, every 3 months for 1 year, and then every 6 months for 3 years. Postoperative follow-up was done with PET scans.

SETTING

Galaxy Care Laparoscopic Institute, Pune, India.

INTERVENTIONS

Operative steps were as follows:

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

The mean operative time was 180 minutes (range, 140-240 minutes), and mean blood loss was 100 mL (range, 50-200 mL), as measured by the amount of blood in the suction machine. The median duration of hospital stay was 4 days (range, 3-7 days). The mean number of lymph nodes retrieved was 12 (range, 9-21). Surgical margins were negative in all patients with a lateral margin >2 cm. Twenty-eight patients had positive lymph nodes. Chemoradiotherapy was given to the patients with positive lymph nodes. Minor leak was present in 11 patients in the immediate postoperative period, for which no active intervention was required. Hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis which was seen on biochemical parameter but clinically patient have no manifestation and was treated with sodium bicarbonate. A postoperative PET scan was done at 6 months after the completion of adjuvant therapy in lymph node-positive patients and 6 months after surgery in node-negative patients.

CONCLUSION

Exenteration has a definitive role in the treatment of advanced cervical cancer. Results have demonstrated the feasibility of this procedure [1-4].

Laparoscopic pelvic exenteration for gynaecological malignancy: is there any advantage?

INTRODUCTION

Pelvic exenteration (PE) remains one of the most mutilating surgical procedures with important postoperative morbidity. Laparoscopic approach has emerged in an attempt to reduce postoperative complications. The aim of the present study was to compare outcomes between laparoscopic pelvic exenteration combined with a vaginal or perineal approach, versus classical approach.

METHODS

A cohort study was performed by identifying patients who underwent laparoscopic pelvic exenteration, and retrospectively comparing data with open cases from the same period of time, from 2000 to 2008.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients underwent laparoscopic PE and 29 patients underwent an open exenterative procedure. All patients except one (97.6%) had received prior radiotherapy. Eighteen patients (41.9%) underwent total PE, 17 anterior PE (39.5%), and 8 posterior PE (18.6%). Urinary diversion (UD) technique consisted of 24 Miami pouch (68.6%), 9 Bricker diversion (25.7%), 1 Kock pouch (2.9%), and 1 ureterostomy (2.9%). Most frequent postoperative complications were related to the urinary diversion (45%) and bowel reconstruction (27.9%). Median estimated blood loss for the laparoscopy and laparotomy group was 400 ml (range 200-700 ml) and 875 ml (range 200-1600 ml), respectively. Transfusion rate was also significantly higher in the laparotomy group. Operative time, margin status, length of hospital stay, operative and postoperative morbidity, and disease and overall survival were not significantly different between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic PE is feasible with curative intent to selected patients. Potential postoperative advantages of laparoscopic approach when compared to classical approach, oncological safety of the procedure, and QOL considerations need to be further investigated.

Current developments for pelvic exenteration in gynecologic oncology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The present review aims to update new techniques of pelvic exenteration including minimal invasive surgery, and discuss other aspects of this radical surgery, including worldwide differences.

RECENT FINDINGS

Major advances are made since the first description of pelvic exenteration and the operation is still under evolution. Explorative laparoscopy prior to exenteration is a valuable alternative to laparotomy to elect candidates for pelvic exenteration. There are considerable differences with respect to indications, contraindications, preoperative staging and adjuvant therapy after exenteration in different countries. Advances in laparoscopic instruments also led to the laparoscopic exenteration. The main limiting step of the operation is urinary diversion. New techniques of laparoscopic-assisted and robotic-assisted techniques of urinary diversion have been reported that decrease the operation time. Vascularized muscle flaps are preferred by many surgeons to fill the empty pelvis and provide an acceptable vaginal reconstruction. J-pouch seems to be a safer technique than end-to-end coloanal anastomosis for bowel reconstruction. Developments in the bioengineering tissue for pelvic reconstruction are required.

SUMMARY

Laparoscopy has the advantages of decreased blood loss, improved convalescence, lower incidence of wound infection and incisional hernia, short recovery periods, rapid return of bowel function, better pain control and improved cosmetics compared with laparotomy for pelvic exenteration. Magnification and improved visualization permits en-bloc dissection of tumor and good anastomosis technique. New techniques of urinary diversion, orthotopic neobladder and coloanal are promising.

[Laparoscopy-assisted vaginal pelvic exenteration]

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to evaluate the feasibility, morbidity and survival outcome of laparoscopy-assisted vaginal pelvic exenteration.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Since 2000, 7 en-bloc pelvic exenteration combining a vaginal or perineal approach and laparoscopic approach have been performed in our cancer center associated with complex laparoscopic reconstruction. All patients but one received previous irradiation. Two patients underwent a total pelvic exenteration; three patients an anterior and middle exenteration; two patients a middle and posterior exenteration. Urinary system was reconstructed with an ileal loop in one case, with a hand-assisted laparoscopic Miami pouch in four cases. Reconstruction of the vagina was performed with an omental cylinder in three cases, with a gluteal thigh flap in one case. A colorectal anastomosis was performed in three patients, one patient had an end colostomy. A mini-laparotomy conversion was necessary in one case because of a pelvic side involvement to perform an intraoperative irradiation.

RESULTS

Mean time of the procedure was 6.5 hours with peroperative bleeding less than 500 cm3. Four patients presented minor complications. No revision of the Miami pouch was necessary. Mean length of hospital stay was 27 days. The four patients with a Miami pouch were able to self catheterize at the time of discharge. Mean follow-up was 14 months. Four patients died of the disease (three were metastatic). One patient presented a local recurrence. Two patients are free of disease.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic or laparoscopy-assisted vaginal pelvic exenteration followed by reconstruction is feasible with curative intent in selected patients.