Pelvic exenteration without external urinary or fecal diversion in gynecological cancer patients

Gluteal Propeller Perforator Flaps: A Paradigm Shift in Abdominoperineal Amputation Reconstruction

Abdominoperineal amputation (AAP) is a gold standard procedure treating advanced abdominal and pelvic cancers. The defect resulting from this extensive surgery must be reconstructed to avoid complications, such as infection, dehiscence, delayed healing, or even death. Several approaches can be chosen depending on the patient. Muscle-based reconstructions are a reliable solution but are responsible for additional morbidity for these fragile patients. We present and discuss our experience in AAP reconstruction using gluteal-artery-based propeller perforator flaps (G-PPF) in a case series. Between January 2017 and March 2021, 20 patients received G-PPF reconstruction in two centers. Either superior gluteal artery (SGAP)- or inferior artery (IGAP)-based perforator flaps were performed depending on the best configuration. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were collected. A total of 23 G-PPF were performed-12 SGAP and 11 IGAP flaps. Final defect coverage was achieved in 100% of cases. Eleven patients experienced at least one complication (55%), amongst whom six patients (30%) had delayed healing, and three patients (15%) had at least one flap complication. One patient underwent a new surgery at 4 months for a perineal abscess under the flap, and three patients died from disease recurrence. Gluteal-artery-based propeller perforator flaps are an effective and modern surgical procedure for AAP reconstruction. Their mechanic properties, in addition to their low morbidity, make them an optimal technique for this purpose; however, technical skills are needed, and closer surveillance with patient compliance is critical to ensure success. G-PPF should be widely used in specialized centers and considered a modern alternative to muscle-based reconstructions.

Guidelines of the Brazilian Society of Oncologic Surgery for pelvic exenteration in the treatment of cervical cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The primary treatment for locally advanced cases of cervical cancer is chemoradiation followed by high-dose brachytherapy. When this treatment fails, pelvic exenteration (PE) is an option in some cases. This study aimed to develop recommendations for the best management of patients with cervical cancer undergoing salvage PE.

METHODS

A questionnaire was administered to all members of the Brazilian Society of Surgical Oncology. Of them, 68 surgeons participated in the study and were divided into 10 working groups. A literature review of studies retrieved from the National Library of Medicine database was carried out on topics chosen by the participants. These topics were indications for curative and palliative PE, preoperative and intraoperative evaluation of tumor resectability, access routes and surgical techniques, PE classification, urinary, vaginal, intestinal, and pelvic floor reconstructions, and postoperative follow-up. To define the level of evidence and strength of each recommendation, an adapted version of the Infectious Diseases Society of America Health Service rating system was used.

RESULTS

Most conducts and management strategies reviewed were strongly recommended by the participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Guidelines outlining strategies for PE in the treatment of persistent or relapsed cervical cancer were developed and are based on the best evidence available in the literature.

[Continent urinary diversion following anterior exenteration]

BACKGROUND

Quality of life after anterior or total exenteration is determined, among other factors, by the type of urinary diversion. There are two different types of urinary diversion: incontinent diversion (ureterocutaneostomy, ileal conduit, and colonic conduit) and continent diversions (continent cutaneous pouch, orthotopic neobladder, and rectal reservoir).

RESULTS

Invasive bladder cancer and advanced or recurrent gynecological tumors are the main indications for continent urinary diversion in women. In patients with non-irradiated bladder cancer, an orthotopic neobladder (except those with tumor invasion of the bladder neck or urethra) or a rectal reservoir is an option. In patients who had received preoperative radiotherapy, non-irradiated bowel segments should be used for urinary diversion (e.g., the transverse colon). In patients with planned postoperative radiation, the urinary diversion should be outside the radiation field.

CONCLUSION

Advantages and disadvantages of all types of urinary diversion should be objectively discussed with the patient. Especially exenteration for advanced or recurrent gynecological cancers should be performed in centers with a multidisciplinary team (gynecologist, urologist, radiotherapist, and in cases with complete exenteration the gastrointestinal surgeon).

Morbidity after pelvic exenteration for gynecological malignancies: a retrospective multicentric study of 230 patients

OBJECTIVE

Our study purpose was to evaluate morbidity and postoperative mortality in patients who underwent pelvic exenteration (PE) for primary or recurrent gynecological malignancies.

METHODS

We identified 230 patients who underwent PE, referred to the gynecological oncology units of 4 institutions: Charitè University in Berlin, Friedrich-Schiller University in Jena, S. Orsola-Malpighi University in Bologna, and Catholic University in Rome and in Campobasso.

RESULTS

The median age was 55 years. The tumor site was the cervix in 177 patients, the endometrium in 28 patients, the vulva in 16 patients, and the vagina in 9 patients. Sixty-eight anterior, 31 posterior, and 131 total PEs were performed in 116 women together with hysterectomy. A total of 82.6% of the patients required blood transfusion. The mean operative time was 446 (95-970) minutes, and the median hospitalization was 24 (7-210) days. We noted a major complication rate of 21.3% (n = 49). We registered 7 perioperative deaths (3%) calculated within 30 days. The operation was performed within clear margins in 166 patients (72.2%). The overall mortality rate depending on tumor site at the end of the study was 75% for vulvar cancer, 57.6% for cervical cancer, 55.6% for vaginal cancer, and 53.6% for endometrial cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Although an important effort for surgeons and for patients, PE remains a therapeutic option with an acceptable complication rate and postoperative mortality. A strict selection of patients is mandatory to reach adequate surgical and oncologic outcomes.

Follow-up of double-barreled wet colostomy after pelvic exenteration at a single institution

PURPOSE

Double-barreled wet colostomy consists of simultaneous urinary and fecal diversions into a lateral colostomy and is indicated after pelvic exenteration or in palliative operations, when complete intestinal and urinary reconstruction is not possible. We report experience at our institution with Double-barreled wet colostomy regarding postoperative and long-term morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

All patients who underwent double-barreled wet colostomy construction at our institution from 1980 through 2008 were included in the study. Medical records were reviewed for type and history of the malignant tumor, previous treatments, comorbidity according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists' score, type and length of surgery, length of hospital stay, and postoperative (within 30 days after the operation) and long-term morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

The study comprised 41 patients. The underlying disease was a malignant pelvic tumor in 30 patients (primary in 6 and recurrent in 24 patients) and a nonmalignant disease in 11 patients. Surgical mortality was 2.4%, and the postoperative morbidity rate was 65.9%. Double-barreled wet colostomy-related morbidity observed during follow-up included pyelonephritis (9.8%, with renal deterioration due to chronic pyelonephritis in 2.4%), stenosis of the uretero-colonic anastomosis (2.4%), and lithiasis in the urine reservoir (7.3%). Follow-up was discontinued after a mean of 18.6 (SD, 19.9) months in 14 patients who had been referred from other centers. A total of 27 patients were followed in our center for a mean of 32.2 (range, 1-156) months. Of these, 7 patients are currently alive, 1 with recurrent disease; 14 patients died from local or distant recurrence; and 6 patients died of causes other than malignancy.

CONCLUSION

Double-barreled wet colostomy is a safe alternative for patients who need simultaneous urinary and fecal diversion, although the risk of ascending urinary infection must be taken into consideration.

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.

Primary pelvic exenteration in cervical cancer patients

Despite the reports of a number of leading institutions concerning the use of primary exenteration, there are differences in regard to definition, indications, and interpretation of results of this treatment approach to cervical cancer. In this paper we present our own experience with 41 cervical cancer patients treated with primary exenteration at St. Stephen Hospital Budapest. We explore some important unsettled aspects (definition, indications, and quality of life consequences) of this treatment modality in view of our own experience and the literature. Between January 1993 and June 2006, 2540 invasive cervical cancer patients were seen at the gynecologic oncology service of the St. Stephens Hospital Budapest. Two hundred twelve (8%) of these patients were surgically explored with the plan of an exenterative surgery. Exenteration was the primary treatment in 41 (25%) of 166 completed exenterations; these 41 cases included 2 cases of supralevator total exenteration, 9 cases of supralevator anterior exenteration, and 30 cases of partial supralevator anterior exenteration. In the 2 total exenteration patients, anal function was restored with a low rectal anastomosis, with a temporary defunctioning colostomy in 1 patient. Urethral function was restored in 9 out of 11 supralevator exenteration cases with the Budapest pouch bladder replacement technique. In the remaining 2 cases, a Bricker conduit was used for urinary diversion. There was no operation-related mortality in this cohort of patients. An external fecal or urinary stoma was avoided in 38 (93%) out of the 41 primary exenteration patients; in 1 patient a temporary defunctioning colostomy was used; and in 2 patients a permanent ileal conduit was created. In 9 patients (22%), complications (ileus and peritonitis, occlusion of the femoral artery, stricture of the implanted ureter, and postoperative ureterovaginal fistula) necessitated surgical intervention. A quality of life study revealed the need for prolonged self-catheterization, partial (mainly night time) incontinence, and lymphedema in 7 patients. We consider and suggest that an en bloc resection of part(s) of the urinary bladder and/or the rectum with the uterine cervix should be considered an exenteration (partial exenteration). A 50% survival rate of a select group of stage IVA cervical cancer patients treated with primary exenteration can be considered significant, but cannot be considered superior to that of chemoradiation therapy. The same applies when considering treatment-related mortality and complications that require operative interventions. Low rectal anastomosis and orthotopic bladder replacement with a relative low risk of fistula formation in non-irradiated patients constitute a strong quality of life argument in favor of primary exenteration in a select group of stage IVA cervical cancer patients.

Pelvic exenteration for gynaecological tumours: achievements and unanswered questions

Pelvic exenteration has been used for 60 years to treat cancers of the lower and middle female genital tract in radiated pelves. The mainstay for treatment success in terms of locoregional control and long-term survival is resection of the pelvic tumour with clear margins (R0). New ablative techniques based on developmentally derived surgical anatomy and laterally extended endopelvic resection have raised the number of R0 resections done, even for tumours that extend to the pelvic side wall, which were traditionally judged a contraindication for exenteration. Although mortality has fallen to less than 5%, treatment-related severe morbidity of pelvic exenteration still exceeds 50%, possibly because of compromised healing of irradiated tissue and use of complex reconstructive techniques. The benefits of exenteration for patients who have advanced primary disease or recurrent tumours after surgery, versus those who have chemoradiotherapy, are not proven by results of controlled trials, but can be assumed from retrospective data. Comparative findings are missing, and arguments are unconvincing to favour pelvic exenteration over less extensive treatments and best supportive care for palliation of cancer symptoms in most patients.