Pelvic exenteration with rectal resection for different types of malignancies at two tertiary referral centres

INTRODUCTION

Pelvic exenteration (PE) offers the best chance of cure for locally advanced primary or recurrent pelvic organ malignancies invading adjacent organs. The aims of this study were to analyse results for any pelvic exenteration that includes rectal resection and the analysis of results of fecal and urinary reconstruction.

METHOD

From January 2000 to April 2014, 111 PE with rectal resection for any pelvic cancer were analysed retrospectively at two national tertiary referral centers.

RESULTS

Thirty-six colorectal anastomosis were performed. Urologic reconstructions performed were 30 double barrelled wet colostomy (DBWC), 14 Bricker ileal conduit (BIC), and 2 ureterocutaneostomies. Postoperative complications occurred in 71 patients (64%). Six deaths (5.4%) occurred within 30 postoperative days. Five-year overall survival following R0 resection was 62.6%; R1: 42.7%; R2: 24.2% (P=.018). The resection margin status was associated with overall survival, local recurrence and distant recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Pelvic exenterations for any cause need to be performed in referral centers and by specialized surgeons. Anastomosis after modified supralevator pelvic exenteration for ovarian cancer, is safe. DBWC can be considered a valid option for urologic reconstruction. The most important prognostic factor after pelvic exenteration for malignant pelvic tumors is the status of surgical margins.

[Interposition of the small intestine between the colon and the rectum as a way of achieving a pelvic anastomosis without pressure]

PURPOSE

There are some circumstances in which the descending colon does not reach the pelvis to complete a colorectal anastomosis without tension. Re-establishing intestinal continuity by interposing small bowel as a bridge between the colon and the rectum could be an acceptable surgical alternative.

METHODS

We describe the interposition of one or two segments of small bowel as a way of restoring continuity of the colon and rectum in three patients in whom it was not possible to perform a colorectal anastomosis without tension due to ischaemic colon, synchronous cancer or difficulty in accessing the supramesocolic space, respectively.

RESULTS

Intestinal continuity was re-established in all patients with no significant morbidity and good intestinal function.

CONCLUSION

The interposition of small bowel segments between the colon and the rectum should be considered a valid surgical option when it is not possible to achieve a well-perfused, tension-free pelvic colorectal anastomosis.