Laparoscopic Pelvic Exenteration for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer, Technique and Short-Term Outcomes

A systematic review and meta-analysis on mortality rate following total pelvic exenteration in cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Total pelvic exenteration (TPE), an en bloc resection is an ultraradical operation for malignancies, and refers to the removal of organs inside the pelvis, including female reproductive organs, lower urological organs and involved parts of the digestive system. The aim of this meta-analysis is to estimate the intra-operative mortality, in-hospital mortality, 30- and 90-day mortality rate and overall mortality rate (MR) following TPE in colorectal, gynecological, urological, and miscellaneous cancers.

METHODS

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis in which three international databases including Medline through PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science on November 2023 were searched. To screen and select relevant studies, retrieved articles were entered into Endnote software. The required information was extracted from the full text of the retrieved articles by the authors. Effect measures in this study was the intra-operative, in-hospital, and 90-day and overall MR following TPE. All analyzes are performed using Stata software version 16 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX).

RESULTS

In this systematic review, 1751 primary studies retrieved, of which 98 articles (5343 cases) entered into this systematic review. The overall mortality rate was 30.57% in colorectal cancers, 25.5% in gynecological cancers and 12.42% in Miscellaneous. The highest rate of mortality is related to the overall mortality rate of colorectal cancers. The MR in open surgeries was higher than in minimally invasive surgeries, and also in primary advanced cancers, it was higher than in recurrent cancers.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it can be said that performing TPE in a specialized surgical center with careful patient eligibility evaluation is a viable option for advanced malignancies of the pelvic organs.

Updated systematic review of the approach to pelvic exenteration for locally advanced primary rectal cancer

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence regarding surgical advances in the management of primary locally advanced rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND

The management of rectal cancer has evolved significantly in recent decades, with improved (neo)adjuvant treatment strategies and enhanced perioperative protocols. Centralization of care for complex, advanced cases has enabled surgeons in these units to undertake more ambitious surgical procedures.

METHODS

A Pubmed, Ovid, Embase and Cochrane database search was conducted according to the predetermined search strategy. The review protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021245582).

RESULTS

14 studies were identified which reported on the outcomes of 3,188 patients who underwent pelvic exenteration (PE) for primary rectal cancer. 50% of patients had neoadjuvant radiotherapy. 24.2% underwent flap reconstruction, 9.4% required a bony resection and 34 patients underwent a major vascular excision. 73.9% achieved R0 resection, with 33.1% experiencing a major complication. Median length of hospital stay ranged from 13 to 19 days. 1.6% of patients died within 30 days of their operation. Five-year overall survival (OS) rates ranged 29%-78%.

LIMITATIONS

The studies included in our review were mostly single-centre observational studies published prior to the introduction of modern neoadjuvant treatment regimens. It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis on the basis that most were non-randomized, non-comparative studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Pelvic exenteration offers patients with locally advanced rectal cancer the chance of long-term survival with acceptable levels of morbidity. Increased experience facilitates more radical procedures, with the introduction of new platforms and/or reconstructive options.

Fascial space priority approach for laparoscopic total pelvic exenteration in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Total pelvic exenteration (TPE) with intent to achieve a pathological R0 resection is now considered as the only chance of a long-term survival for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) invading into adjacent organs. Lately, laparoscopic total pelvic exenteration (LTPE) is performed and achieved in several specialized centers and showed a promising application prospect. Although this is universally realized by surgeons, there are only few specialized centers to perform this complex surgery, due to concerns about the high morbidity and mortality. The techniques associated need to be disclosed and facilitated.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this article is to introduce a fascial space priority approach for laparoscopic TPE step by step (with video).

METHODS

We describe here a fascial space priority approach for LTPE in highly selected patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. The main principle of this approach is that all of the pelvic organs are considered as a whole, the non-vascular spaces surrounding it are separated in the first place, the vascular pedicle and nerve pedicle of pelvic organs can be isolated and then transected precisely. Meanwhile, the associated key landmarks of this approach are disclosed (see the video).

RESULTS

The ureterohypogastric nerve fascia (UHGNF) and the vesicohypogastric fascia (VHGF) are two vital embryological planes on the lateral compartment of pelvis. The spaces on either side of them together with the retrorectal space, the space of Retzius, are all non-vascular spaces, and dissection of these spaces in LTPE surgery can be achieved simply and practicably. The ureter, the umbilical artery, the arcus tendinous fasciae pelvis (ATFP), piriformis and the puboprostatic ligament (PPL) are all important landmarks during surgery. Step-by-step illustration with precise anatomical landmarks in the present video may lead to less intraoperative blood loss and complications.

CONCLUSIONS

LTPE with fascial space priority approach might be a standard surgical procedure for total pelvic exenteration with clear anatomy and reduced blood loss.

Contemporary Management of Locally Advanced and Recurrent Rectal Cancer: Views from the PelvEx Collaborative

Pelvic exenteration is a complex operation performed for locally advanced and recurrent pelvic cancers. The goal of surgery is to achieve clear margins, therefore identifying adjacent or involved organs, bone, muscle, nerves and/or vascular structures that may need resection. While these extensive resections are potentially curative, they can be associated with substantial morbidity. Recently, there has been a move to centralize care to specialized units, as this facilitates better multidisciplinary care input. Advancements in pelvic oncology and surgical innovation have redefined the boundaries of pelvic exenterative surgery. Combined with improved neoadjuvant therapies, advances in diagnostics, and better reconstructive techniques have provided quicker recovery and better quality of life outcomes, with improved survival This article provides highlights of the current management of advanced pelvic cancers in terms of surgical strategy and potential future developments.

Laparoscopic versus open resection in locally advanced rectal cancers: a propensity matched analysis of oncological and short-term outcomes

AIM

The aim was to compare oncological and short-term outcomes between open and laparoscopic surgery in locally advanced rectal cancers.

METHODS

It is a retrospective analysis conducted in a high volume tertiary centre. Matching was carried out for nine variables, including preoperative factors, neoadjuvant treatment and sphincter preservation.

RESULTS

Both the open and laparoscopic surgery arms had 239 patients each. The distributions of pretreatment MRI T3, T4, circumferential resection margin (CRM) positive tumours, neoadjuvant long-course chemoradiation and sphincter preservation were 80.3%, 13.6%, 50%, 89% and 56.4% respectively. The mean number of nodes harvested (12.9 vs. 12.7, P = 0.716), pathological CRM positivity (6.3% in open vs. 5.4% in laparoscopic, P = 0.697) and distal resection margins were similar. The mean blood loss was higher in open surgeries (910 ml vs. 349 ml, P < 0.001). Anastomotic leaks and Clavien-Dindo Grade 3-4 complications were higher in the open arm than in the laparoscopy arm (5.9% vs. 1.7%, P = 0.024, and 12.5% vs. 6.7%, P = 0.015 respectively). The median postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the laparoscopy arm (7 vs. 6, P = 0.015). In CRM positive and threatened cases, the measured outcomes were similar between the two groups except for blood loss which was significantly higher in the open surgery (872 vs. 379, P = 0.000).

CONCLUSIONS

In high volume centres, in the hands of experienced colorectal surgeons, laparoscopic rectal surgery is oncologically safe in locally advanced rectal cancers and has lesser morbidity and shorter hospital stay than open surgery. In CRM positive and threatened cases the laparoscopic surgery showed less blood loss compared to open surgery, while other outcome measures were similar to open surgery.

Minimally invasive versus open pelvic exenterations for rectal cancer: a comparative analysis of perioperative and 3-year oncological outcomes

BACKGROUND

This study compared the surgical and oncological outcomes of open and minimally invasive pelvic exenteration.

METHODS

Patients who underwent pelvic exenterations for primary locally advanced rectal cancers with invasion of the urogenital organs (central and anterior disease) between August 2013 and September 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were categorized as undergoing open or minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and these groups were compared for perioperative outcomes and 3-year survival (overall, recurrence-free and local relapse-free survival). Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to assess the independent influence of approach of surgery and cancer features on recurrence-free survival (RFS).

RESULTS

Of the 158 patients who underwent pelvic exenteration, 97 (61.4 per cent) had open exenterations and 61 (38.6 per cent) patients had an MIS resection (44 patients (72 per cent) using laparoscopy and 17 (28 per cent) using robotic surgery). There were 96 (60.8 per cent) total pelvic exenterations and 62 (39.2 per cent) posterior pelvic exenterations. MIS exenterations had significantly longer operative times (MIS versus open: 640 mins versus 450 mins; P < 0.001) but reduced blood loss (MIS versus open: 900 ml versus 1600 ml; P < 0.001) and abdominal wound infections (MIS versus open: 8.2 versus 17.5 per cent; P = 0.020) without a difference in hospital stay (MIS versus open: 11 versus 12 days; P = 0.620). R0 resection rates and involvement of circumferential resection margins were similar (MIS versus open: 88.5 versus 91.8 per cent, P = 0.490 and 13.1 versus 8.2 per cent, P = 0.342 respectively). At a median follow-up of 29 months, there were no differences in 3-year overall survival (MIS versus open: 79.4 versus 60.2 per cent; P = 0.251), RFS (MIS versus open: 51.9 versus 47.8 per cent; P = 0.922) or local relapse-free survival (MIS versus open: 89.7 versus 75.2 per cent; P = 0.491. On multivariable analysis, approach to surgery had no bearing on RFS, and only known distant metastasis, aggressive histology and inadequate response to neoadjuvant radiation (pathological tumour regression grade greater than 3) predicted worse RFS.

CONCLUSION

MIS exenterations documented longer procedures but resulted in less blood loss and fewer wound infections compared with open surgeries. In the setting of an experienced centre, the hospital stay, R0 resection rates and oncological outcomes at 3 years were similar to those of open exenterations.

State-of-the-art surgery for recurrent and locally advanced rectal cancers

Extended and beyond total mesorectal excisions (TME) for advanced and recurrent rectal cancers are increasingly performed with acceptable oncological and functional outcomes. These are undoubtedly due to better understanding of tumor biology and improved patient selection rather than surgical valor and technical refinements alone. In the present review, we attempt to present the current surgical standards for advanced and recurrent cancers requiring surgery outside the TME planes based on involved pelvic compartments. The available procedures, their indications, and extent of resection and reconstruction are highlighted. Emphasis is on formation of dedicated exenteration teams, structured training, and referral systems that increase hospital and surgeon volume to improve patient outcomes and reduce morbidity. Areas of deficiencies in literature were recognized with regards to factors influencing recurrences, patient selection, and quality of life. Finally, the most appropriate preoperative therapy for these tumors is unclear in both the primary and recurrent settings.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Pelvic Exenteration in Primary Colorectal Cancer

Background:

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for pelvic exenteration is not a well-established technique. The aim was to assess the safety and feasibility of MIS for pelvic exenteration in locally advanced primary colorectal cancer and to compare the perioperative outcomes with open surgery.

Methods:

This is a retrospective analysis of patients, who had undergone pelvic exenteration for primary colorectal adenocarcinoma from May 2013 to July 2018. The short-term outcomes like perioperative details and histopathological characteristics were compared between the two groups.

Results:

MIS was performed in 23 patients and open pelvic exenteration was carried out in 72 patients. The mean operative time was significantly more in the MIS group (640 vs. 432 min, p = 0.00). The intraoperative blood loss (900 vs. 1550 ml, p = 0.00) and the requirement for blood transfusion (170 vs. 250 ml, p = 0.03) was significantly less in the MIS group. The overall morbidity (60% vs. 49%, p = 0.306) was comparable between the two groups. The median length of hospital stay in the MIS group was 11 d, compared to 12 d in the open surgery group, (p = 0.634). The rate of R0 resection (87% vs. 89%, p = 0.668) was comparable between the two groups.

Conclusion:

MIS is feasible and safe for total pelvic exenteration and posterior exenteration in carefully selected locally advanced primary colorectal cancer, when performed by an experienced surgical team in high volume centers. An R0 resection with adequate margin can be achieved with good perioperative outcomes in MIS. Long-term oncological outcomes would require further follow up to confirm.

Evolution of Robotic Surgery in a Colorectal Cancer Unit in India

Only a handful of institutions in the country have an established robotic surgery program. Evolution of robotic surgery in the colorectal division, from inception to recent times, is presented here. All the patients undergoing robotic colorectal surgery from the inception of the program (September 2014) to August 2019 were identified. The patient and treatment details and short-term outcomes were collected retrospectively from the prospectively maintained database. The cohort was divided into four chronological groups (group 1 being the oldest) to assess the surgical trends. There were 202 patients. Seventy-one percent were male. Mean BMI was 23.25. Low rectal tumours were most common (47%). A total of 74.3% patients received neo-adjuvant treatment. Multivisceral resection was done in 22 patients, including 4 synchronous liver resections. Average operating time for standard rectal surgery was 280 min with average blood loss of 235 ml. The mean nodal yield was 14. Circumferential resection margin positivity was 6.4%. The mean hospital stay for pelvic exenteration was significantly higher than the rest of the surgeries (except for posterior exenteration and total proctocolectomy) (p = 0.00). Clavin-Dindo grade 3 and 4 complications were seen in 10% patients. As the experience of the team increased, more complex cases were performed. Blood loss, margin positivity, nodal yield, leak rates and complications were evaluated group wise (excluding those with additional procedures) to assess the impact of experience. We did not find any significant change in the parameters studied. With increasing experience, the complexity of surgical procedures performed on da Vinci Xi platform can be increased in a systematic manner. Our short-term outcomes, i.e. nodes harvested, margin positivity, hospital stay and morbidity, are on par with world standards. However, we did not find any significant improvement in these parameters with increasing experience.

The Technique and Justification for Minimally Invasive Surgery in COVID-19 Pandemic: Laparoscopic Anterior Resection for Near Obstructed Rectal Carcinoma

Introduction: The recent COVID-19 pandemic outbreak has made surgeons change and take on newer strategies and safe exercises. All elective cases have been put off, but oncology cases need to be done to prevent progression of the disease. There is concern about minimally invasive surgery due to aerosol formation. Here we discuss how we have dealt with this in our colorectal surgery department taking into account current evidence about the danger of viral transmission during laparoscopic surgery. Discussion: We report a case of 28 years old female patient with carcinoma rectum. The patient had near total intestinal obstruction. She was operated on utilizing laparoscopic anterior resection. The air seal (CONMED, Utica, NY) and high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter was utilized for safe gas evacuation. There is no evidence against laparoscopic surgery, which suggest viral transmission. One should take utmost precautions using N95 masks and personal protective equipment (PPE). Air filtration products like aerosol, HEPA filters will be of great aid in safe evacuation of gases. Conclusion: At present, there is no solid evidence to suggest viral transmission through surgical smoke. We believe due to effective smoke containment, less blood loss, and less postoperative stay, laparoscopy will be a non-inferior option than open surgical procedure. We advise taking all precautions for operating room staff to lessen the danger of transmission.