Laparoscopic total pelvic exenteration for locally advanced carcinoma of the rectum - a video vignette

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.