| Literature DB >> 34950574 |
Nicolò Bizzarri1, Nazario Foschi2, Matteo Loverro1, Lucia Tortorella1, Francesco Santullo3, Andrea Rosati1, Salvatore Gueli Alletti1, Barbara Costantini1, Valerio Gallotta1, Gabriella Ferrandina1,4, Anna Fagotti1,4, Francesco Fanfani1,4, Alfredo Ercoli5, Vito Chiantera6, Giovanni Scambia1,4, Giuseppe Vizzielli1,7.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Pelvic exenteration performed for recurrent/persistent gynecological malignancies has been associated with urological short- and long-term morbidity due to altered vascularization of tissues for previous radiotherapy. The aims of the present study were to describe the use of intravenous indocyanine green (ICG) to assess vascularity of urinary diversion (UD) after pelvic exenteration for gynecologic cancers, to evaluate the feasibility and safety of this technique, and to assess the postoperative complications.Entities:
Keywords: anastomosis; gynecological cancer; ileal conduit diversion; indocyanine green (ICG); major postoperative complications; pelvic exenteration (PE)
Year: 2021 PMID: 34950574 PMCID: PMC8691262 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.727725
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Figure 1Wallace ileal conduit uretero-enteric anastomoses indocyanine green (ICG) perfusion demonstrated with three different modalities: overlay fluorescence mode (A), contrast fluorescence mode (B), color segmented fluorescence mode (C).
Figure 2Bricker ileal conduit uretero-enteric anastomoses demonstrating right ureter with optimal indocyanine green (ICG) perfusion (+++) vs. left ureter with poor ICG perfusion (- - -).
Patients’ characteristics.
| Characteristic | Patients (N = 15) (range, %) |
|---|---|
|
| 53 (32-74) |
|
| 23.4 (17.0-35.2) |
|
| |
| Cervix | 12 (80.0) |
| Vulva | 1 (6.7) |
| Endometrium | 2 (13.3) |
|
| |
| 1 | 0 |
| 2 | 14 (93.3) |
| 3 | 1 (6.7) |
| 4 | 0 |
|
| |
| Radio(chemotherapy) | 14 (93.3) |
| Chemotherapy | 1 (6.7) |
|
| |
| Anterior | 5 (33.3) |
| Total | 10 (66.7) |
|
| |
| No | 14 (93.3) |
| Yes | 1 (6.7) |
|
| |
| No | 13 (86.7) |
| Yes | 2 (13.3) |
|
| |
| No | 13 (86.7) |
| Yes | 2 (13.3) |
|
| 8 (1-21) |
|
| |
| No | 2 (13.3) |
| G1-2 | 5 (33.3) |
| G3-5 | 8 (53.3) |
|
| |
| No | 6 (40.0) |
| G1-2 | 3 (20.0) |
| G3-5 | 6 (40.0) |
|
| |
| Bricker | 9 (60.0) |
| Wallace type 1 | 6 (40.0) |
|
| |
| 3 ml | 14 (93.3) |
| 6 ml | 1 (6.7) |
Indocyanine green (ICG) perfusion according to different anastomoses.
| ICG perfusion of anastomosis/ostomy | Patients (N = 15) (%) |
|---|---|
|
| |
| + + +/+ + - | 9 (60.0) |
| + - -/- - - | 6 (40.0) |
|
| |
| + + +/+ +- | 11 (73.3) |
| + - -/- -- | 4 (26.6) |
|
| |
| + + +/+ + - | 15 (100.0) |
| + --/--- | 0 |
|
| |
| + + +/+ + - | 3 (100.0) |
| + - -/- - - | 0 |
|
| |
| + + +/+ + - | 5 (71.4) |
| + - -/- - - | 2 (28.6) |
*3 patients underwent total pelvic exenteration with colo-rectal anastomosis.
**7 patient underwent total pelvic exenteration with end sigmoid colostomy.
Correlation between indocyanine green (ICG) perfusion of all anastomoses* and clinical outcomes.
| Clinical outcome | Poor vascularization (---/+ --/+ + -) (N = 12) | Optimal vascularization (+ + +) (N = 3) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.448 | ||
| No | 2 (16.7) | 0 | |
| Yes | 10 (83.3) | 3 (100.0) | |
|
| 0.569 | ||
| No/G1-2 | 5 (41.7) | 2 (66.7) | |
| G3-5 | 7 (58.3) | 1 (33.3) | |
|
| 0.792 | ||
| No | 5 (41.7) | 1 (33.3) | |
| Yes | 7 (58.3) | 2 (66.7) | |
|
| 0.812 | ||
| Not yet beyond 30 days | 1 (8.3) | 0 | |
| No/G1-2 | 6 (50.0) | 2 (66.7) | |
| G3-5 | 5 (41.7) | 1 (33.3) | |
|
| 1 (8.3) | 0 | 0.605 |
|
| 5 (41.7) | 0 | 0.287 |
*Optimal vascularization was defined as such, if all anastomoses had maximum ICG perfusion (+ + +).
Logistic regression analysis of variables associated with 30-day grade 3–4 postoperative complications.
| Characteristic | OR (95%CI) | p-value |
|---|---|---|
|
| 0.500 (0.35-7.104) | 0.609 |
| <65 | ||
| ≥65 | ||
|
| 2.800 (0.196-40.057) | 0.448 |
| Poor | ||
| Optimal* | ||
|
| 0.857 (0.044-16.851) | 0.919 |
| No | ||
| Yes | ||
|
| 0.857 (0.044-16.851) | 0.919 |
| No | ||
| Yes | ||
|
| 5.000 (0.388-63.387) | 0.217 |
| <6 | ||
| ≥6 | ||
|
| 1.500 (0.170-13.225) | 0.715 |
| Anterior | ||
| Total | ||
|
| 2.500 (0.292-21.399) | 0.403 |
| Bricker | ||
| Wallace |
*Optimal vascularization was defined as such, if all anastomoses had maximum ICG perfusion (+ + +).