Orthotopic continent urinary diversion (the Budapest pouch) in 10 steps

Trends and current aspects of reconstructive surgery for gynecological cancers

Gynecologic cancers can lead to gynecologic tract destruction with extension into both the gastrointestinal and urinary tracts. Recurrent disease can also affect the surrounding bony pelvis and pelvic musculature. As opposed to advanced ovarian cancer, where cytoreduction is the goal, in these scenarios, an oncologic approach to achieve negative margins is critical for benefit. Surgeries aimed at achieving a R0 resection in gynecologic oncology can have a significant impact on pelvic anatomy, and require reconstruction. Overall, it appears that these types of radical surgery are less frequently performed; however, when required, multidisciplinary teams at high-volume centers can potentially improve short-term morbidity. There are few data to examine the long-term, quality-of-life outcomes after reconstruction following oncologic resection in advanced and recurrent gynecologic cancers. In this review we outline considerations and approaches for reconstruction after surgery for gynecologic cancers. We also discuss areas of innovation, including minimally invasive surgery and the use of 3D surgical anatomy models for improved surgical planning.In the era of 'less is more', pelvic exenteration in gynecologic oncology is still indicated when there are no other curative-intent alternatives in persistent or recurrent gynecological malignancies confined to the pelvis or with otherwise unmanageable symptoms from fistula or radiation necrosis. Pelvic exenteration is one of the most destructive procedures performed on an elective basis, which inevitably carries a significant psychologic, sexual, physical, and emotional burden for the patient and caregivers. Such complex ultraradical surgery, which requires removal of the vagina, vulva, urinary tract, and/or gastrointestinal tract, subsequently needs creative and complex reconstructive procedures. The additional removal of sidewall or perineal structures, like pelvic floor muscles/vulva, or portions of the musculoskeletal pelvis, and the inclusion of intra-operative radiation further complicates reconstruction. This review paper will focus on the reconstruction aspects following pelvic exenteration, including options for urinary tract restoration, reconstruction of the vulva and vagina, as well as how to fill large empty spaces in the pelvis. While the predominant gastrointestinal outcome after exenteration in gynecologic oncology is an end colostomy, we also present some novel new options for gastrointestinal tract reconstruction at the end.

Long-Term Survival, Prognostic Factors, and Quality of Life of Patients Undergoing Pelvic Exenteration for Cervical Cancer

Background: Considerable efforts have been carried out over the past 30 years to support patients with advanced cervical cancer. Throughout this time, Eastern European countries have been left aside from the decision-making groups on this matter, hence the absence of similar studies in this geographical area. In these countries, the quality of life (QoL) of patients with cervical cancer might be considered a “caprice”, and the discomforts they encounter following pelvic exenteration for cervical cancer are often perceived as a “normal phenomenon”. Methods: This study examined forty-seven patients submitted to pelvic exenteration followed up for nine years after the surgical intervention. The first objective of this study is to identify the prognostic factors that influence the overall survival (OS) of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration for FIGO stage IVA, recurrent or persistent cervical cancer after previous conclusive treatments. The second objective is to assess the QoL of the surviving patients using the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CX24 standardized questionnaires. Results: The mean age of the participants was 54 years (range 36−67). At the time of the study, there were 25 living patients (53.2%), the 3-year OS was 61%, and the 5-year OS was 48.7%. Cox regression analysis recognized parameter invasion, pelvic lymph node metastases, positive resection margins, early postoperative complications, and infralevatorian pelvic exenteration as negative prognostic factors influencing the OS (p < 0.05). Of the 25 survivors, 18 patients answered the QoL questionnaires. The cost of favorable survival has been translated into poor overall QoL, unsatisfactory functional, social, and symptom scores, a high prevalence of cervical cancer-specific symptoms such as lymphedema, peripheral neuropathy, severe menopausal symptoms, distorted body image, and lack of sexual desire. The lower scores are comparable to the only three studies available in the literature that assessed the QoL of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration precisely for cervical cancer. Conclusions: Despite its retrospective nature and some limitations, this paper, similar to other studies, shows a decent OS but with a marked adverse impact on QoL, suggesting the importance of adequate psycho-emotional and financial support for these patients following pelvic exenteration. This study also contributes to the current knowledge regarding advanced cervical cancer treatment, depicting survival, prognostic factors, and QoL of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration for cervical cancer in a reference center in Eastern Europe. Our study can provide a comparison for future prospective randomized trials needed to confirm these results.

Urinary diversion after pelvic exenteration for gynecologic malignancies

Pelvic exenteration combines multiple organ resections and functional reconstruction. Many techniques have been described for urinary reconstruction, although only a few are routinely used. The aim of this review is to focus beyond the technical aspects and the advantages and disadvantages of each technique, and to include a critical analysis of continent techniques in the gynecologic and urologic literature. Selecting a technique for urinary reconstruction must take into account the constraints entailed by the natural history of the disease, patient characteristics, healthcare institution, and surgeon experience. In gynecologic oncology, the Bricker ileal conduit is the most commonly employed diversion, followed by the self-catheterizable pouch and orthotopic bladder replacement. Continent and non-continent diversions present similar immediate and long-term complication rates, including lower tract urinary infections and pyelonephritis (5-50%), ureteral stricture (3-27%), urolithiasis (5-25%), urinary fistula (5%), and more rarely, vitamin B12 deficiency and metabolic acidosis. Urinary incontinence for the ileal orthotopic neobladder (50%), stoma-related complications for the Bricker ileal conduit (24%), difficulty with self-catheterization (18%) for the continent pouch, and induction of secondary malignancy for the ureterosigmoidostomy (3%) are the most relevant technique-related complications following urinary diversion. The self-catheterizable pouch and orthotopic bladder require a longer learning curve from the surgical team and demand adaptation from the patient compared with the ileal conduit. Quality of life between different techniques remains controversial, although it would seem that young patients may benefit from continent diversions. We consider that centralization of pelvic exenteration in referral centers is crucial to optimize the oncologic and functional outcomes of complex ablative reconstructive surgery.