BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to explore the surgical, oncological and quality of life outcomes in the setting of radical resection of colorectal carcinoma involving major nerve resection.
METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was registered with the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) and performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify papers relating to outcomes in radical resection of colorectal cancer where major nerve resection was undertaken. Papers were identified from OVID Medline, EMBASE Classic and Web of Science encompassing all publications in English from January 2010 to June 2023. A total of 1357 nonduplicate studies were identified and screened for relevance, with six studies included in the final review.
RESULTS: A total of 354 major nerve resections were undertaken across the six included studies. Overall postoperative morbidity was reported at rates of up to 82%. Two studies considered nerve-resection-specific oncological outcomes, with complete pathological resection achieved at rates comparable to the wider pelvic exenteration cohort (65-68%) and without any overall survival disadvantage being conveyed by major nerve resection (p = 0.78). Two studies considered functional outcomes and noted a transient decrease in physical quality of life over the first 6 months postoperatively (p = 0.041) with significant loss to follow-up. One study considered postoperative pain in nerve resection and noted no significant increase in patient-reported pain scores associated with nerve resection (p = 0.184-0.618).
CONCLUSIONS: Major nerve resections in locally advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer remain understudied but with encouraging initial oncological and functional outcomes. Multicentre collaborative prospective reviews are needed to better elucidate contributors to postoperative morbidity and functional deficits and further establish interventions to ameliorate them.

Background: Patients with persistent or recurrent cervical cancer, following primary treatment with concurrent chemoradiation, represent a subgroup eligible for pelvic exenteration. In light of the substantial morbidity associated with open pelvic exenterations, minimally invasive surgical techniques have been introduced. This systematic review aims to analyze and discuss the current literature on robotic-assisted pelvic exenterations in cervical cancer. In addition, novel aspects of compartment-based magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are highlighted. Methods: This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines, and a comprehensive literature search on robotic-assisted pelvic exenterations in cervical cancer was conducted to assess, as main objectives, early and late postoperative complications as well as oncological outcomes. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to select eligible studies. Results: Among the reported cases of robotic-assisted pelvic exenterations in cervical cancer, 79.4% are anterior pelvic exenterations. Intraoperative complications are minimal and early/late major complications averaged between 30-35%, which is lower compared to open pelvic exenterations. Oncological outcomes are similar between robotic and open pelvic exenterations. Sensitivity for locoregional invasion increases up to 93% for compartment-based MRI in colorectal cancer. A refined delineation of the seven pelvic compartments for cervical cancer is proposed here. Conclusions: Robotic-assisted pelvic exenterations have demonstrated feasibility and safety, with reduced rates of major complications compared to open surgery, while maintaining surgical efficiency and oncological outcomes. Compartment-based MRI holds promise for standardizing the selection and categorization of pelvic exenteration procedures.

BACKGROUND: Total pelvic exenteration (TPE), an en bloc resection is an ultraradical operation for malignancies, and refers to the removal of organs inside the pelvis, including female reproductive organs, lower urological organs and involved parts of the digestive system. The aim of this meta-analysis is to estimate the intra-operative mortality, in-hospital mortality, 30- and 90-day mortality rate and overall mortality rate (MR) following TPE in colorectal, gynecological, urological, and miscellaneous cancers.
METHODS: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis in which three international databases including Medline through PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science on November 2023 were searched. To screen and select relevant studies, retrieved articles were entered into Endnote software. The required information was extracted from the full text of the retrieved articles by the authors. Effect measures in this study was the intra-operative, in-hospital, and 90-day and overall MR following TPE. All analyzes are performed using Stata software version 16 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX).
RESULTS: In this systematic review, 1751 primary studies retrieved, of which 98 articles (5343 cases) entered into this systematic review. The overall mortality rate was 30.57% in colorectal cancers, 25.5% in gynecological cancers and 12.42% in Miscellaneous. The highest rate of mortality is related to the overall mortality rate of colorectal cancers. The MR in open surgeries was higher than in minimally invasive surgeries, and also in primary advanced cancers, it was higher than in recurrent cancers.
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, it can be said that performing TPE in a specialized surgical center with careful patient eligibility evaluation is a viable option for advanced malignancies of the pelvic organs.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer and the second highest cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. About 5%-10% of patients are diagnosed with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) on presentation. For LARC invading into other structures (i.e. T4b), multivisceral resection (MVR) and/or pelvic exenteration (PE) remains the only potential curative surgical treatment. MVR and/or PE is a major and complex surgery with high post-operative morbidity. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been shown to improve short-term post-operative outcomes in other gastrointestinal malignancies, but there is little evidence on its use in MVR, especially so for robotic MVR.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and safety of minimally invasive MVR (miMVR), and compare post-operative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic MVR.
METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective cohort study from 1st January 2015 to 31st March 2023. Inclusion criteria were patients diagnosed with cT4b rectal cancer and underwent MVR, or stage 4 disease with resectable systemic metastases. Patients who underwent curative MVR for locally recurrent rectal cancer, or metachronous rectal cancer were also included. Exclusion criteria were patients with systemic metastases with non-resectable disease. All patients planned for elective surgery were enrolled into the standard enhanced recovery after surgery pathway with standard peri-operative management for colorectal surgery. Complex surgery was defined based on technical difficulty of surgery (i.e. total PE, bladder-sparing prostatectomy, pelvic lymph node dissection or need for flap creation). Our primary outcomes were the margin status, and complication rates. Categorical values were described as percentages and analysed by the chi-square test. Continuous variables were expressed as median (range) and analysed by Mann-Whitney U test. Cumulative overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were analysed using Kaplan-Meier estimates with life table analysis. Log-rank test was performed to determine statistical significance between cumulative estimates. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05.
RESULTS: A total of 46 patients were included in this study [open MVR (oMVR): 12 (26.1%), miMVR: 36 (73.9%)]. Patients\' American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index and co-morbidities were comparable between oMVR and miMVR. There is an increasing trend towards robotic MVR from 2015 to 2023. MiMVR was associated with lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (median 450 vs 1200 mL, P = 0.008), major morbidity (14.7% vs 50.0%, P = 0.014), post-operative intra-abdominal collections (11.8% vs 50.0%, P = 0.006), post-operative ileus (32.4% vs 66.7%, P = 0.04) and surgical site infection (11.8% vs 50.0%, P = 0.006) compared with oMVR. Length of stay was also shorter for miMVR compared with oMVR (median 10 vs 30 d, P = 0.001). Oncological outcomes-R0 resection, recurrence, OS and RFS were comparable between miMVR and oMVR. There was no 30-d mortality. More patients underwent robotic compared with laparoscopic MVR for complex cases (robotic 57.1% vs laparoscopic 7.7%, P = 0.004). The operating time was longer for robotic compared with laparoscopic MVR [robotic: 602 (400-900) min, laparoscopic: Median 455 (275-675) min, P < 0.001]. Incidence of R0 resection was similar (laparoscopic: 84.6% vs robotic: 76.2%, P = 0.555). Overall complication rates, major morbidity rates and 30-d readmission rates were similar between laparoscopic and robotic MVR. Interestingly, 3-year OS (robotic 83.1% vs 58.6%, P = 0.008) and RFS (robotic 72.9% vs 34.3%, P = 0.002) was superior for robotic compared with laparoscopic MVR.
CONCLUSIONS: MiMVR had lower post-operative complications compared to oMVR. Robotic MVR was also safe, with acceptable post-operative complication rates. Prospective studies should be conducted to compare short-term and long-term outcomes between robotic vs laparoscopic MVR.

Pelvic exenteration represents a radical procedure aimed at achieving complete tumor resection with negative margins. Although it is the only therapeutic option for some cases of advanced tumors, it is associated with several perioperative complications. We believe that careful patient selection is related to better oncologic outcomes and lower complication rates. The objectives of this review are to identify the most current indications for this intervention, suggest criteria for case selection, evaluate recommendations for perioperative care, and review oncologic outcomes and potential associated complications. To this end, an analysis of English language articles in PubMed was performed, searching for topics such as the indication for pelvic exenteration for recurrent gynecologic neoplasms selection of oncologic cases, the impact of tumor size and extent on oncologic outcomes, preoperative and postoperative surgical management, surgical complications, and outcomes of overall survival and recurrence-free survival.

OBJECTIVE: There is increasing research interest in pelvic exenteration for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer. Heterogeneity in outcome reporting can prevent meaningful interpretation and valid synthesis of pooled data and meta-analyses. The aim of this study was to assess homogeneity in outcome measures in the current pelvic exenteration literature.
METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL and Scopus databases were searched from 1990 to 25 April 2023 to identify studies reporting outcomes of pelvic exenteration for locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer. All reported outcomes were extracted, merged with those of similar meaning and assigned a domain.
RESULTS: Of 4137 abstracts screened, 156 studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 2765 outcomes were reported, of which 17% were accompanied by a definition. There were 1157 unique outcomes, merged into 84 standardized outcomes and assigned one of seven domains. The most reported domains were complications (147 studies, 94%), survival (127, 81%) and surgical outcomes (123, 79%). Resection margins were reported in 122 studies (78%): the definition of a clear resection margin was not provided in 45 studies (37%), it was unclear in 11 studies (9%) and not specified beyond microscopically \'clear\' or \'negative\' in 31 (28%). Measurements of 2, 1, 0.5 mm and any healthy tissue were all used to define R0 margins.
CONCLUSIONS: There is significant heterogeneity in outcome measurement and reporting in the current pelvic exenteration literature, raising concerns about the validity of comparative or collaborative studies between centres and meta-analyses. Coordinated international collaboration is required to define core outcome sets and benchmarks.

BACKGROUND: Radical surgical excision may be the only curative option for patients with advanced pelvic malignancy, but concerns surrounding the functional outcomes and survivorship of patients undergoing exenterative surgery remain. This is especially important in the context of vulvovaginal resection, where patients are often younger and surgery can have a profoundly negative impact on quality of life, body image and overall wellbeing. Reconstructive procedures are an important means of mitigating these adverse effects but outcomes are poorly described.
OBJECTIVE: To define the outcomes associated with gynaecological reconstructive procedures following pelvic exenterative surgery and to compare them with the outcomes of those patients who did not undergo reconstruction.
METHODS: An international, multicentre retrospective investigation comparing the outcomes of reconstruction with no reconstruction. The protocol was prospectively registered (NCT05074069).
RESULTS: 334 patients were included. 77 patients had a neovagina reconstructed, 139 patients underwent flap reconstruction and 118 were not reconstructed. Patients who underwent reconstruction had a longer operative time and hospital stay with an increased risk of minor perineal complications. Reconstruction did not confer an increased risk of surgical reintervention, and overall complication rates were equivalent. Procedure-specific major morbidity was 5.2 % and 11.5 % for neovaginal and flap reconstruction, respectively. 66 % of patients undergoing neovaginal reconstruction experienced no long term morbidity. 7 % developed neovaginal stenosis and 12 % suffered disease recurrence.
CONCLUSIONS: Neovaginal reconstruction is safe in carefully selected patients and offers specific advantages over alternative techniques, with few patients requiring reoperation. Primary closure does not increase perineal morbidity.

OBJECTIVE: Rectal cancer is often treated surgically with an anterior resection (AR) or abdominoperineal excision (APE). However, for patients with locally advanced disease or local recurrence total pelvic exenteration (TPE) surgery can be performed. The magnitude of surgery varies, and little research has been done to consider how quality of life (QoL) may vary according to the extent of surgery.
METHODS: A search was conducted on MEDLINE and PubMed for papers published from 2010 to 2021. Inclusion criteria consisted of observational studies comparing adult populations with rectal cancer undergoing APE, AR or TPE, reporting QoL using validated tools. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Outcomes of interest were global QoL, gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms (nausea and vomiting, diarrhoea, and constipation) and pain.
RESULTS: Seven studies including 1402 patients were analysed. QoL following TPE generally improves over time, back to baseline or better. AR and APE groups have similar patterns of improvement between baseline and 12 months after surgery, although scores declined in some studies at 12 months. TPE scores are lower overall, and the pattern of improvement differs, with patients tending to have worse nausea and vomiting symptoms. AR and APE patients tend to experience more lower GI symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS: It is not possible to draw firm conclusions based on the studies analysed. However, QoL returns to baseline following TPE, APE and AR. Preoperative QoL appears to be an indication of postoperative outcomes. Further observational studies are required.

OBJECTIVE: Locally advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer can require extended surgery, including reconstruction of the vagina. This complex surgery carries high morbidity. The aim of this study was to analyse the impact on female sexual functioning of pelvic exenteration (PE), with or without vaginal flap reconstruction, for locally advanced or recurrent colorectal cancer.
METHODS: The protocol with search strategies for PubMed (Medline), EMBASE and the Cochrane Library was registered in PROSPERO. Studies published from 2000 onwards meeting the inclusion criteria were considered. Study selection (Rayyan), data extraction, rating of evidence (GRADE) and risk of bias (ROBINS-I) were conducted independently by two reviewers.
RESULTS: Six of 2479 identified records were included: four retrospective and two cross-sectional studies. Of all 860 patients included, PE was performed in 314 patients. Seven hundred and thirty-two had rectal cancer (85.1%), 80 nonadvanced rectal cancer (10.9%), 393 locally advanced rectal cancer (53.7%) and 217 locally recurrent rectal cancer (29.6%); for 45 patients the type of rectal cancer remained unspecified (6.1%). Three studies reported on both preoperative and postoperative female sexual activity. Of the 153 women who were sexually active preoperatively, 64 (41.8%) reported postoperative sexual activity. The VRAM flap was used the most frequently and resulted in a sexual activity ratio of 18% postoperatively. Four studies, using six different validated questionnaires, reported mostly lowered sexual functioning postoperatively.
CONCLUSIONS: Most studies showed that PE can result in severe sexual dysfunction despite reconstruction. Future prospective studies can fill the current knowledge gap by assessing long-term sexual outcomes in women.

Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a complex multivisceral surgical procedure indicated for locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies. It poses significant technical challenges which account for the high risk of morbidity and mortality associated with the procedure. Developments in minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches and enhanced peri-operative care have facilitated improved long term outcomes. However, the optimum approach to PE remains controversial.
A systematic literature search was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines to identify studies comparing MIS (robotic or laparoscopic) approaches for PE versus the open approach for patients with locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed systematically and a meta-analysis was conducted.
11 studies were identified, including 2009 patients, of whom 264 (13.1%) underwent MIS PE approaches. The MIS group displayed comparable R0 resections (Risk Ratio [RR] 1.02, 95% Confidence Interval [95% CI] 0.98, 1.07, p = 0.35)) and Lymph node yield (Weighted Mean Difference [WMD] 1.42, 95% CI -0.58, 3.43, p = 0.16), and although MIS had a trend towards improved towards improved survival and recurrence outcomes, this did not reach statistical significance. MIS was associated with prolonged operating times (WMD 67.93, 95% CI 4.43, 131.42, p < 0.00001) however, this correlated with less intra-operative blood loss, and a shorter length of post-operative stay (WMD -3.89, 955 CI -6.53, -1.25, p < 0.00001). Readmission rates were higher with MIS (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.11, 4.02, p = 0.02), however, rates of pelvic abscess/sepsis were decreased (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21, 0.95, p = 0.04), and there was no difference in overall, major, or specific morbidity and mortality.
MIS approaches are a safe and feasible option for PE, with no differences in survival or recurrence outcomes compared to the open approach. MIS also reduced the length of post-operative stay and decreased blood loss, offset by increased operating time.