Since it was first reported in 1948, pelvic exenteration has been used in the treatment of advanced pelvic cancers. The original procedure has been modified in an attempt to preserve urinary or fecal continence. A literature review was performed on selected series of total pelvic exenterations and modified pelvic exenterations in order to assess and discuss the different types of pelvic exenterations and the indications, contraindications, morbidity, mortality, and results of these procedures. According to the series reviewed, morbidity after pelvic exenteration ranges between 32% and 84%, postoperative mortality ranges from 0% to 14%, and and 5-year survival varies from 23% to 68% These numbers indicate that total pelvic exenteration and its modifications are a complex group of surgical procedures with significant early and late postoperative morbidity and mortality. While the authors do feel that these findings indicate that pelvic exenteration should only be undertaken by experienced surgeons at specialized centers, the authors caution that, about all, their findings indicate that the potential curability of a patient with adjacent organ involvement should not be compromised by doing less than an en bloc resection.

Pelvic exenteration was first described by Alexander Brunschwig in 1948 in New York as a palliative procedure for recurrent carcinoma of the cervix. Because of initially high rates of morbidity and mortality, the practice of this ultraradical operation was largely confined to a small number of American centers for most of the 20 century. The post-World War II era saw advances in anaesthesia, blood transfusion, and intensive care medicine that would facilitate the evolution of more radical and heroic abdominal and pelvic surgery. In the last 3 decades, pelvic exenteration has continued to evolve into one of the most important treatments for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer. This review aimed to explore the evolution of pelvic exenteration surgery and to identify the pioneering surgeons, seminal articles, and novel techniques that have led to its current status as the procedure of choice for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer.

Pelvic exenteration represents the best treatment option for cure of locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer. This systematic review sought to evaluate current literature regarding short and long term treatment outcomes and long term survival following pelvic exenteration.A systematic search of the MEDLINE, PubMed and Ovid databases was conducted to identify suitable articles published between 2001 and 2016. The article search was performed in line with Cochrane methodology and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses statement.Sixteen studies were included in the final analysis, incorporating 1016 patients. Sixty-three percent of patients were male and median patient age was 59 years. Median operating time was 7.2 h with median blood loss of 1.9 l. Median postoperative stay was 17 days with a median 30-day mortality of 0. Complication rates were 31.6-86% with a return to theatre rate of 14.6%. Median R0 resection rate was 74% and was higher for primary cancer (82.6% versus 58% for recurrent cancer). Mean overall survival was 31 months and median 5-year survival was 32%. Recurrently identified indicators of adverse outcome included R1/2 resection, preoperative pelvic pain and previous abdominoperineal resection of the rectum.Pelvic exenteration remains a major operation associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite advances in preoperative assessment and staging, R1 resection rates remain high. There is also a high degree of variability of reporting outcomes and standardisation of this process would aid comparison of results between centres and drive forward research in this area.

Classification of pelvic local recurrence (LR) after surgery for primary rectal cancer is not currently standardized and optimal imaging is required to categorize anatomical site and plan treatment in patients with LR. The aim of this review was to evaluate the systems used to classify locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) and the relevant published outcomes.

Pelvic recurrence following curative resection for colorectal carcinoma continues to pose a challenge to the oncologist despite current multimodality therapy. Pelvic exenteration with or without sacral resection may provide long-term disease-free survival and a chance of cure for a small subset of patients in whom the recurrent disease is confined to the pelvis and can be resected with "clear" margins. For others with residual disease, exenteration may offer good palliation for the intractable symptoms, but no survival advantage. The clinical decision to perform exenteration with palliative intent must be individualized. This is generally not advised because of the short life expectancy in the face of prolonged convalescence. This technically demanding procedure is associated with significant morbidity, especially in patients with prior pelvic radiation. Current advances in urinary diversion and methods of pelvic reconstruction may significantly reduce these problems. The surgeon's experience and careful patient selection remain the most important determinants of success with this operation.

My purpose was to treat infrailiac pelvic wall recurrences of gynecologic malignancies with extended radical surgery.On the basis of cadaver dissection studies, I developed the laterally extended endopelvic resection techniques. The new operations were offered to patients with infrailiac sidewall disease during a 3-year feasibility study.Laterally extended endopelvic resections extending the lateral resection plane of pelvic exenteration to the medial aspects of the acetabulum, obturator membrane, sacrospinous ligament, and sacral plexus/piriformis muscle were performed in 18 consecutive patients. After this procedure, all patients had tumor-free intraoperative biopsy specimens taken from the remaining pelvic wall structures within the tumor bed area. The final histopathologic report confirmed clean margins in 6 patients and margins with microscopic tumor extensions only in 12 patients. Severe complications occurred in 4 patients (22%), without treatment-related deaths.Laterally extended endopelvic resection allows the complete surgical removal of infrailiac pelvic-side-wall tumors, the most frequent local recurrence of lower genital tract cancer, either with free margins or with potential microscopic residual tumor as a prerequisite for combined operative and radiation treatment.

The aim of the study was to compare health-related quality of life (QoL) and oncological outcome between gynaecological cancer patients undergoing pelvic exenteration (PE) and extended pelvic exenteration (EPE). EPEs were defined as extensive procedures including, in addition to standard PE extent, the resection of internal, external, or common iliac vessels; pelvic side-wall muscles; large pelvic nerves (sciatic or femoral); and/or pelvic bones.Data from 74 patients who underwent PE (42) or EPE (32) between 2004 and 2019 at a single tertiary gynae-oncology centre in Prague were analysed. QoL assessment was performed using EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC CX-24, and QOLPEX questionnaires specifically developed for patients after (E)PE.No significant differences in survival were observed between the groups (P > 0.999), with median overall and disease-specific survival in the whole cohort of 45 and 49 months, respectively. Thirty-one survivors participated in the QoL surveys (20 PE, 11 EPE). No significant differences were observed in global health status (P = 0.951) or in any of the functional scales. The groups were not differing in therapy satisfaction (P = 0.502), and both expressed similar, high willingness to undergo treatment again if they were to decide again (P = 0.317).EPEs had post-treatment QoL and oncological outcome comparable to traditional PE. These procedures offer a potentially curative treatment option for patients with persistent or recurrent pelvic tumour invading into pelvic wall structures without further compromise of patients´ QoL.Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Extended pelvic surgery with neurovascular or bony resections in gynecological oncology has significant impact on quality of life (QoL) and high morbidity. The objective of this systematic review was to provide an overview of QoL, morbidity and mortality following these procedures.The registered PROSPERO protocol included database-specific search strategies. Studies from 1966 onwards reporting on QoL after extended pelvic surgery with neurovascular or bony resections for gynecological cancer were considered eligible. All others were excluded. Study selection (Rayyan), data extraction, rating of evidence (GRADE) and risk of bias (ROBINS-I) were performed independently by two reviewers.Of 349 identified records, 121 patients from 11 studies were included-one prospective study, seven retrospective studies, and three case reports. All studies were of very low quality and with an overall serious risk of bias. Primary tumor location was the cervix (n = 78, 48.9%), vulva (n = 30, 18.4%), uterus (n = 21, 12.9%), endometrium (n = 15, 9.2%), ovary (n = 8, 4.9%), (neo)vagina (n = 3, 1.8%), Gartner duct/paracolpium (n = 1, 0.6%), or synchronous tumors (n = 3, 1.8%), or were not reported (n = 4, 2.5%). Bony resections included the pelvic bone (n = 36), sacrum (n = 2), and transverse process of L5 (n = 1). Margins were negative in 70 patients and positive in 13 patients. Thirty-day mortality was 1.7% (2/121). Three studies used validated QoL questionnaires and seven used non-validated measurements; all reported acceptable QoL postoperatively.In this highly selected patient group, mortality and QoL seem to be acceptable, with a high morbidity rate. This comprehensive study will help to inform eligible patients about the outcomes of extended pelvic surgery with neurovascular or bony resections. Future collaborative studies can enable the collection of QoL data in a validated, uniform manner.© 2024. Society of Surgical Oncology.

To determine surgical, survival and quality of life outcomes across different tumour streams and lessons learned over 28 years.Consecutive patients undergoing pelvic exenteration at a single, high volume, referral hospital, between 1994 and 2022 were included. Patients were grouped according to their tumour type at presentation as follows, advanced primary rectal cancer, other advanced primary malignancy, locally recurrent rectal cancer, other locally recurrent malignancy and non-malignant indications. The main outcomes included, resection margins, postoperative morbidity, long-term overall survival, and quality of life outcomes. Non-parametric statistics and survival analyses were performed to compare outcomes between groups.Of the 1023 pelvic exenterations performed, 981 (95.9%) unique patients were included. Most patients underwent pelvic exenteration due to locally recurrent rectal cancer (N = 321, 32.7%) or advanced primary rectal cancer (N = 286, 29.2%). The rates of clear surgical margins (89.2%; P < 0.001) and 30-days mortality were higher in the advanced primary rectal cancer group (3.2%; P = 0.025). The 5-year overall survival rates were 66.3% in advanced primary rectal cancer and 44.6% in locally recurrent rectal cancer. Quality of life outcomes differed across groups at baseline, but generally had good trajectories thereafter. International benchmarking revelled excellent comparative outcomes.The results of this study demonstrate excellent outcomes overall, but significant differences in surgical, survival and quality of life outcomes across patients undergoing pelvic exenteration due to different tumour streams. The data reported in this manuscript can be utilized by other centres as benchmarking as well as proving both subjective and objective outcome details to support informed decision-making for patients.© 2023 Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.

Anal squamous cell carcinoma, typically associated with human papillomavirus infection, remains a rare malignancy. This article outlines a case of local recurrence in a male patient with a history of HIV and hepatitis C virus infection, previously treated with chemoradiotherapy. Extensive tumour involvement called for total pelvic exenteration extended to anterior osteomuscular compartment and genitalia. The surgical approach involved multidisciplinary collaboration and detailed preoperative planning using three-dimensional reconstruction. Key surgical considerations comprised the following: achieving tumour-free margins (R0 resection), extensive osteotomies and intricate pelvic floor reconstruction with prosthetic mesh and flap reconstruction. The procedure successfully yielded an R0 resection, maintaining adequate lower limb functionality. Our case report underscores the benefits of pelvic exenteration in locally advanced or recurrent pelvic tumours, invariably following careful patient selection and exhaustive preoperative studies.

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.

With the introduction of total mesorectal excision (TME) for treatment of rectal cancer, the prognosis of patients with rectal cancer is improved. With this better prognosis, there is a growing awareness about the quality of life of patients after rectal carcinoma. Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for rectal cancer offers several advantages in comparison with open total mesorectal excision (OTME), including greater patient comfort and an earlier return to daily activities while preserving the oncologic radicality of the procedure. Moreover, laparoscopy allows good exposure of the pelvic cavity because of magnification and good illumination. The laparoscope seems to facilitate pelvic dissection including identification and preservation of critical structures such as the autonomic nervous system. The technique for laparoscopic autonomic nerve preserving total mesorectal excision is reported. A three- or four-port technique is used. Vascular ligation, sharp mesorectal dissection and identification and preservation of the autonomic pelvic nerves are described.