Pelvic exenteration: a retrospective study in a tertiary referral cancer center in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration (PE) is an extensive surgery that is indicated in cases of recurrent advanced gynecological cancer with curative and sometimes palliative intent. The procedure is associated with both high morbidity and mortality and as such is considered a highly specialist procedure. The aim of the study was to analyze surgical outcomes in women who underwent PE for advanced gynecological malignancy in a tertiary cancer referral center over 11 years. METHODS: This is an observational retrospective single-center study. There were 17 patients included who underwent PE in Hull Royal Infirmary Hospital (Hull, UK) between 2010 and 2021. The main outcome measures were the perioperative complications, overall survival (OS), and recurrence free survival (RFS). Cumulative survival rates were reported at 1, 3 and 5 years. Univariate Cox regression analysis was undertaken to analyze factors that are prognostic for OS and RFS. Hazard Ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were computed from the results of the Cox regression analyses. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were generated to visually display estimates of OS and RFS over the follow-up period. RESULTS: The median age at the time of surgery was 63.0 (IQR: 48.0-71.0). All patients received surgery with curative intent and complete tumor resection (R0) was achieved in 94.1% of cases. An overall 5-year survival was achieved in 63.7% of patients. Mean overall survival (OS) was 8.4 years (95% CI: 7.78-9.02). The RFS was 5.0 years (95% CI: 4.13-5.87). Both OS and RFS were significantly negatively affected by the hospital stay (P=0.020 and P=0.035, respectively), but not by the type of surgery (P=0.263 and P=0.826, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study demonstrated stable and comparable outcomes in patients undergoing pelvic exenteration.

A new technique for laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal endometriosis.

BACKGROUND: Anterior rectal resection is sometimes necessary to treat deeply infiltrating rectovaginal endometriosis. We describe a completely laparoscopic approach as a new way of excising rectal endometriosis that can be used without opening any part of the rectum. This avoids opening the abdomen or any risk of fecal spillage. METHODS: The patient received preoperative oral bowel preparation. Ureteric stents (6 F) were inserted cystoscopically. The peritoneum in the ovarian fossae was opened lateral to any disease and the rectum reflected off the back of the cervix, leaving any endometriosis on the front of the rectum. The pelvic peritoneum was reflected medially, below the level of the ureters. The mesorectum was then dissected off a 6-cm length of rectum by using a Harmonic scalpel. A circular end-to-end anastomosis instrument was passed anally until the outline of the anvil was visible, inside the colon, above the diseased rectum. The anvil was detached and held by a soft grasper before the rectum was then divided above and below the disease using a laparoscopic stapling device. The tip of the anvil was pushed through the proximal end of the colon allowing reanastomosis of the rectal stump. CONCLUSION: The patient was discharged after 5 days without complications.

Pain, quality of life and complications following the radical resection of rectovaginal endometriosis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the long term response, quality of life and levels of pain following the radical excision of rectovaginal endometriosis. DESIGN: A cohort study. SETTING: A tertiary referral centre for the management of advanced endometriosis. SAMPLE: All patients who had undergone radical resection. METHODS: Case note review and patient questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Surgical complications. Overall improvement. Dysmenorrhoea, dyspareunia, dyschezia and chronic pain were measured using a visual analogue scale. Quality of life was measured using the EQ-5D questionnaire. RESULTS: Twelve radical resections were performed by laparotomy, 48 by laparoscopy. Ten patients had a hysterectomy. Forty-eight patients underwent shaving of the pre-rectal fascia, two had a disc resection of the rectum, 10 had an anterior rectal resection. Two patients required a colostomy and two needed subsequent dilation of a stenosed anastomosis. Forty-four of the first 46 patients replied. The median follow up period was 12 months (range 2 to 22 months) and 86% (38/44) reported an improvement or whom 27 (61%) had a good response (pain completely gone or greatly improved). Patients having a hysterectomy or a disc or segmental resection of the rectum reported a good response and had a normal quality of life. Quality of life scores in the study group overall were lower than the background population. CONCLUSIONS: Radical resection is an effective treatment for rectovaginal endometriosis. Hysterectomy and rectal resection were associated with a better response and quality of life.