Anastomotic leakage and subsequent pelvic sepsis are serious complications after surgery for pelvic malignancies, particularly challenging due to the large pelvic cavity dead space post-exenteration. We report a 47-year-old man treated for a severely infected pelvic hematoma and sepsis following anastomotic leakage after anterior pelvic exenteration. Post robot-assisted exenteration for locally advanced sigmoid colon cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, a pelvic abscess from anastomotic dehiscence was identified. Initial CT-guided drainage and subsequent laparoscopic drainage were performed. On postoperative day 22, a bleeding left internal iliac pseudoaneurysm required embolization. Despite these efforts, the sepsis worsened due to an enlarged, infected hematoma. Endoscopic lavage, in collaboration with skilled endoscopists, successfully removed the hematoma, leading to an improved inflammatory response, and the patient was discharged. Endoscopic lavage proved to be the safest and most effective treatment for pelvic sepsis with an infected hematoma after various attempted interventions.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration provides significant survival benefits for selected patients diagnosed with locally advanced rectal cancer. However, in-hospital postoperative morbidity such as abdominal abscess, sepsis, and anastomotic leak remain highly prevalent, which can have short/long-term impacts on patient quality of life (QoL). The aim of this study was to determine the influence of postoperative morbidity on QoL outcomes in patients following pelvic exenteration.
METHODS: This prospective cohort study included patients who underwent pelvic exenteration at a tertiary teaching hospital in Sydney, between 2008 and 2023. QoL measures were collected at baseline, 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months using the short-form 36 (SF-36v2) survey. The predictors included variables relating to postoperative morbidity, including hospital and ICU length of stay (LOS), post-discharge mortality and the number of postoperative complications. Mixed-effects analyses were used to determine the influence of these postoperative outcomes on physical and mental QoL trajectories.
RESULTS: This study included 674 patients, with a median age of 61 years. Shorter hospital and ICU LOS, and fewer or no postoperative complications were associated with higher physical QoL scores across all time points. Conversely, postoperative morbidity did not exhibit a significant impact on mental QoL scores. Furthermore, there was a longitudinal improvement in mental QoL outcomes compared to baseline, independent of postoperative morbidity.
CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative morbidity significantly impacted physical QoL outcomes after pelvic exenteration, whereas mental QoL outcomes were not influenced. Interventions aimed at mitigating postoperative morbidity may hold the potential to enhance long-term QoL outcomes following pelvic exenteration.

First described some 80 years ago, pelvic exenteration remain controversial interventions with variable results and ever-changing indications. The previous studies are not homogenous and have different inclusion criteria (different populations and different disease characteristics) and methodologies (including evaluation of results), making it extremely difficult to properly assess the role of pelvic exenteration in cancer treatment. This study aims to describe the indications of pelvic exenterations, the main prognostic factors of oncologic results, and the possible complications of the intervention. Methods: For this purpose, we conducted a retrospective study of 132 patients who underwent various forms of pelvic exenterations in the Institute of Oncology \"Prof. Dr. Al. Trestioreanu\" in Bucharest, Romania, between 2013 and 2022, collecting sociodemographic data, characteristics of patients, information on the disease treated, data about the surgical procedure, complications, additional cancer treatments, and oncologic results. Results: The study cohort consists of gynecological, colorectal, and urinary bladder malignancies (one hundred twenty-seven patients) and five patients with complex fistulas between pelvic organs. An R0 resection was possible in 76.38% of cases, while on the rest, positive margins on resection specimens were observed. The early morbidity was 40.63% and the mortality was 2.72%. Long-term outcomes included an overall survival of 43.7 months and a median recurrence-free survival of 24.3 months. The most important determinants of OS are completeness of resection, the colorectal origin of tumor, and the presence/absence of lymphovascular invasion. Conclusions: Although still associated with high morbidity rates, pelvic exenterations can deliver important improvements in oncological outcomes in the long-term and should be considered on a case-by-case basis. A good selection of patients and an experienced surgical team can facilitate optimal risks/benefits.

Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a radical surgical approach designed for the curative treatment of advanced pelvic malignancies, requiring en-bloc resection of multiple pelvic organs. While the procedure is radical, it has shown promise in enhancing long-term survival and is now comparable in surgical mortality to elective resections for primary pelvic cancers. Imaging plays a crucial role in preoperative planning, with MRI, CT, and PET/CT being pivotal in assessing the extent of cancer and formulating a surgical roadmap. This paper presents clinical practice guidelines for imaging in the context of PE, developed jointly by ESGAR, SAR, ESUR, and the PelvEx Collaborative. These guidelines aim to standardize imaging protocols and reporting to improve the preoperative assessment and facilitate decision-making in the multidisciplinary treatment of pelvic cancers. Our recommendations underscore the importance of a multidisciplinary approach and the need for clear and precise imaging reports to optimize patient care. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Our recommendations underscore the importance of a multidisciplinary approach and the need for clear and precise imaging reports to optimize patient care. KEY POINTS: MRI is mandatory for local staging in pelvic exenteration. Structured reporting (using the template provided in this guide) is recommended. Multidisciplinary review of imaging is critical for surgical planning.

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.

OBJECTIVE: The clinical burden of pelvic exenteration (PE) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is nationally under-reported. The widespread use of pelvic MRI since 2005 has increased the accuracy of local staging and awareness of the need for \'beyond TME (total mesorectal excision)\' surgery. The aim of this study was to assess the volume of patients undergoing PE within England, which factors affected survival outcomes and whether the use of MRI has influenced these outcomes.
METHODS: The volume of patients undergoing PE and associated survival outcomes across England between 1995 and 2016 was evaluated from Public Health England Hospital Episode Statistics data.
RESULTS: A total of 2996 patients were recorded as undergoing PE. The 5-year overall survival rate improved after 2005 compared with prior to 2005 (61.7% vs. 37%, p < 0.001), with no significant difference between cancer registries throughout England. After 2005, the volume of patients undergoing PE and undergoing preoperative MRI increased, as did the number of non-T4 cancers operated on. After 2005, age, preoperative MRI and preoperative radiotherapy were the significant factors influencing 5-year overall survival on multivariate analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: This review of national data confirms that PE outcomes are under-reported. MRI staging aids with the identification of patients suitable for perioperative treatment, surgery or palliation and facilitates treatment planning. Since 2005, MRI, likely in combination with advances in surgery and perioperative treatment, has improved survival outcomes. It is imperative that detailed information from patients with LARC undergoing PE is captured and reported in order to optimize care and future service provision.

OBJECTIVE: Improvements in neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced cT4 rectal cancer have led to improved tumour response and thus a variety of suitable management strategies. The aim of this study was to report management and outcomes of patients with cT4 rectal cancer undergoing a spectrum of treatment strategies from organ preservation (OP) to pelvic exenteration (PE).
METHODS: Patients who underwent elective treatment for cT4 rectal cancer between 2016 and 2021 were included. All patients were treated with curative intent. Surgical management was adapted to tumour response. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to compare 3-year overall survival (3y-OS), local recurrence (3y-LR) and distant metastases (3y-DM) between different strategies.
RESULTS: Among 152 patients included, 13 (8%) underwent OP, 71 (47%) TME and 68 (45%) APR/PE. The median follow-up was 31.3 months. Patients undergoing OP had a lower tumour pretreatment (p < 0.001). Compared to patients with TME, those with APR/PE had a higher rate of ypT4 (p = 0.001) with a lower R0 rate (p = 0.044). The 3y-OS and 3y-DM were 78% and 15.1%, respectively, without significant differences. The 3y-LR was 6.6%, and patients with OP had a significantly worse 3y-local regrowth compared to 3y-LR in patients with TME and APR/PE (30.2% vs. 5.4% vs. 2%, p = 0.008).
CONCLUSIONS: cT4 tumours may be suitable for the full spectrum of rectal cancer management from organ preservation to pelvic exenteration depending on tumour response to neoadjuvant therapy. However, careful attention is required in OP as local regrowth in up to 30% of cases reinforces the need for sustained active surveillance in Watch&Wait programmes.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration (PE) is an extensive surgical treatment reserved for advanced or recurrent pelvic neoplasms, with potential impacts on patients\' quality of life (QoL) poorly referenced in the literature.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate QoL outcomes among three types of PE.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study assessed 106 patients divided into anterior PE (APE), posterior PE (PPE), or total PE (TPE) groups. QoL was measured using e short form 36 version 2 (SF-36) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) QoL questionnaires. Descriptive and inferential analyses compared questionnaire scores.
RESULTS: The findings unveiled a balance among the three groups concerning demographic variables and comorbidities, with the exception of a male predominance in the APE and TPE cohorts. Notably, the APE group exhibited elevated scores in overall health (assessed via SF-36) and social functioning and diarrhea domains (assessed via QLQ-C30). Moreover, in terms of the fatigue and nausea/vomiting domains (assessed via QLQ-C30), the APE group demonstrated superior QoL compared to the PPE group. Conversely, the PPE group manifested a notably lower QoL in the constipation domain (assessed via QLQ-C30) compared to the other two groups. Additionally, disease recurrence was significantly associated with diminished QoL across multiple domains.
CONCLUSIONS: APE patients exhibited better QoL than PPE and TPE groups, with disease recurrence adversely affecting QoL.

OBJECTIVE: To compare perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing pelvic exenteration for gynecologic malignancies before and after implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols.
METHODS: We performed an institutional retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration for gynecologic malignancies before (1/1/2006-12/30/2014) and after (1/1/2015-6/30/2023) ERAS implementation. We described ERAS compliance rates. We compared outcomes up to 60 days post-exenteration. Complication grades were defined by the Clavien-Dindo system.
RESULTS: Overall, 105 women underwent pelvic exenteration; 74 (70.4%) in the pre-ERAS and 31 (29.5%) in the ERAS cohorts. There were no differences between cohorts in age, body mass index, race, primary disease site, type of exenteration, urinary diversion, or vaginal reconstruction. All patients had complications, with at least one grade II+ complication in 94.6% of pre-ERAS and 90.3% of ERAS patients. The ERAS cohort had more grade I-II gastrointestinal (61.3% vs 21.6%, p < 0.001) and hematologic (61.3% vs 36.5%, p = 0.030) and grade III-IV renal (29.0% vs 12.2%, p = 0.048) and wound (45.2% vs 18.9%, p = 0.008) complications compared to the pre-ERAS cohort. ERAS patients had a higher rate of ileus (38.7% vs 10.8%, p = 0.002), urinary leak (22.6% vs 5.4%, p = 0.014), pelvic abscess (35.5% vs 10.8%, p = 0.005), postoperative bleeding requiring intervention (61.3% vs 28.4%, p = 0.002), and readmission (71.4% vs 46.5%, p = 0.025). Median ERAS compliance was 60%.
CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic exenteration remains a morbid procedure, and complications were more common in ERAS compared to pre-ERAS cohorts. ERAS protocols should be optimized and tailored to the complexity of pelvic exenteration compared to standard gynecologic oncology ERAS pathways.

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.