Disease-free survival after robotic-assisted laparoscopic total pelvic exenteration for recurrent cervical adenocarcinoma: A case report

Robotic-Assisted Pelvic Exenteration for Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Novel Insights into Compartment-Based Imaging

Background: Patients with persistent or recurrent cervical cancer, following primary treatment with concurrent chemoradiation, represent a subgroup eligible for pelvic exenteration. In light of the substantial morbidity associated with open pelvic exenterations, minimally invasive surgical techniques have been introduced. This systematic review aims to analyze and discuss the current literature on robotic-assisted pelvic exenterations in cervical cancer. In addition, novel aspects of compartment-based magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are highlighted. Methods: This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines, and a comprehensive literature search on robotic-assisted pelvic exenterations in cervical cancer was conducted to assess, as main objectives, early and late postoperative complications as well as oncological outcomes. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to select eligible studies. Results: Among the reported cases of robotic-assisted pelvic exenterations in cervical cancer, 79.4% are anterior pelvic exenterations. Intraoperative complications are minimal and early/late major complications averaged between 30-35%, which is lower compared to open pelvic exenterations. Oncological outcomes are similar between robotic and open pelvic exenterations. Sensitivity for locoregional invasion increases up to 93% for compartment-based MRI in colorectal cancer. A refined delineation of the seven pelvic compartments for cervical cancer is proposed here. Conclusions: Robotic-assisted pelvic exenterations have demonstrated feasibility and safety, with reduced rates of major complications compared to open surgery, while maintaining surgical efficiency and oncological outcomes. Compartment-based MRI holds promise for standardizing the selection and categorization of pelvic exenteration procedures.

Opportunities and Limitations of Pelvic Exenteration Surgery

PURPOSE

The practice of exenterative surgery is sometimes controversial and has garnered a certain scepticism. Surgical studies are difficult to conduct due to insufficient data. The aim of this review is to present the current standing of pelvic exenteration from a surgical, gynaecological and urological point of view.

METHODS

This review is based upon a literature review (MEDLINE (PubMed), CENTRAL (Cochrane) and EMBASE (Elsevier)) of retrospective studies on exenterative surgery from 1993-2020. Using MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) search terms, 1572 publications were found. These were evaluated and screened with respect to their eligibility using algorithms and well-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Therefore, the guidelines for systematic reviews (PRISMA) were used.

RESULTS

A complete tumour resection (R0) often represents the only curative option for advanced pelvic carcinomas and their recurrences. A recent systematic review showed significant symptom relief in 80% of palliative patients after pelvic exenteration. Surgical limitations (distant metastases, involvement of the pelvic wall, etc.) are diminished by adequate surgical expertise and close interdisciplinary cooperation. While the mortality rate is low (2-5%), the still relatively high morbidity rate (32-84%) can be minimized by optimizing the perioperative setting. Following exenterations, roughly 79-82% of patients report satisfying results according to PROs (patient-reported outcomes).

CONCLUSION

Due to multimodality treatment strategies combined with extended surgical expertise and patients' preferences, pelvic exenteration can be offered nowadays with low mortality and acceptable postoperative quality of life. The possibilities of surgical treatment are often underestimated. A multi-centre database (PelvEx Collaborative) was established to collect data and experiences to optimize the research in this field.

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.

Salvage robotic anterior pelvic exenteration for cervical cancer: technique and feasibility

The aim of our study was to explain the technique and evaluate the feasibility and safety of robotic anterior pelvic exenteration in cases of residual/recurrent cervical cancer as a salvage therapy. The study was conducted as a retrospective review of all the cases of central residual/recurrent cervical cancer who underwent anterior pelvic exenteration by robotic approach with curative intent at our centre between January 2013 and December 2019. Information regarding various treatment related parameters like duration of surgery, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, early and late complications and recurrence and survival was collected and evaluated. 14 patients underwent anterior pelvic exenteration by robotic approach in this period. The median age of patients at time of exenteration was 52.5 years. 13 out of 14 patients had received combined chemoradiation as a part of intial treatment. The median duration of surgery was 305 min with a median estimated blood loss of 135 ml and median length of hospital stay of 6.5 days. Early complications like urosepsis, uretero-ileal anastomotic leak and paralytic ileus occurred in 36% patients and late complications like ureteric stricture and bowel perforation occurred in 28.6% patients. Negative surgical margins could be achieved in all the patients. Over a median follow-up period of 17.5 months, five patients developed recurrence and five patients experienced mortality, with four out of five patients dying due to recurrent disease. The 12-month DFS was 68.2% and the 12-month OS was 77.1%. Robotic anterior pelvic exenteration is a safe and feasible option in selected patients with recurrent/residual cervical cancer as a salvage procedure, with acceptable morbidity and mortality.