BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration is potentially curative for locally advanced and recurrent pelvic cancers. Evolving technology has facilitated the use of minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques in selected cases. We aimed to compare outcomes between open and MIS pelvic exenteration. METHODS: A review of comparative studies was performed. Firstly, we evaluated the differences in surgical techniques with respect to operative time, blood loss, and margin status. Secondly, we assessed differences in 30-day morbidity and mortality rates, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Four studies that directly compared open and MIS exenteration were included. Analysis was performed on 170 patients; 78.1% (n = 133) had open pelvic exenteration, while 21.8% (n = 37) had a MIS exenteration. The median age for open exenteration was 57.7 years versus 63 years for MIS exenteration. Even though the operative time for MIS exenteration was 83 min longer (p < 0.001), it was associated with a median of 1,750mls less blood loss. The morbidity rate for MIS exenterative group was 56.7% (n = 21/37) versus 88.5% (n = 85/96) in the open exenteration group, with pooled analysis observing a 1.17 relative risk increase in 30-day morbidity (p = 0.172) in the open exenteration group. In addition, the MIS cohort had a 6-day shorter length of hospital stay (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: MIS exenteration can be performed in highly selective cases, where there is favourable patient anatomy and tumour characteristics. When feasible, it is associated with reduced intra-operative blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay, and reduced morbidity.
BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration is potentially curative for locally advanced and recurrent pelvic cancers. Evolving technology has facilitated the use of minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques in selected cases. We aimed to compare outcomes between open and MIS pelvic exenteration. METHODS: A review of comparative studies was performed. Firstly, we evaluated the differences in surgical techniques with respect to operative time, blood loss, and margin status. Secondly, we assessed differences in 30-day morbidity and mortality rates, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Four studies that directly compared open and MIS exenteration were included. Analysis was performed on 170 patients; 78.1% (n = 133) had open pelvic exenteration, while 21.8% (n = 37) had a MIS exenteration. The median age for open exenteration was 57.7 years versus 63 years for MIS exenteration. Even though the operative time for MIS exenteration was 83 min longer (p < 0.001), it was associated with a median of 1,750mls less blood loss. The morbidity rate for MIS exenterative group was 56.7% (n = 21/37) versus 88.5% (n = 85/96) in the open exenteration group, with pooled analysis observing a 1.17 relative risk increase in 30-day morbidity (p = 0.172) in the open exenteration group. In addition, the MIS cohort had a 6-day shorter length of hospital stay (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: MIS exenteration can be performed in highly selective cases, where there is favourable patient anatomy and tumour characteristics. When feasible, it is associated with reduced intra-operative blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay, and reduced morbidity.
Authors: F T J Ferenschild; M Vermaas; C Verhoef; A C Ansink; W J Kirkels; A M M Eggermont; J H W de Wilt Journal: World J Surg Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Stefano Cianci; Martina Arcieri; Giuseppe Vizzielli; Canio Martinelli; Roberta Granese; Marco La Verde; Anna Fagotti; Francesco Fanfani; Giovanni Scambia; Alfredo Ercoli Journal: Front Surg Date: 2021-11-30