David Arrese

Retrospective review of pelvic malignancies undergoing total pelvic exenteration

BackgroundIn patients with locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies, total pelvic exenteration (TPE) may be necessary for curative treatment. Despite improvements in mortality rates since TPE was first described, morbidity rates remain high due to the extensive resection and the aggressiveness of these tumors. We have studied the outcomes of TPE surgery performed at our institution.MethodsFifty-three patients with various pelvic pathologies underwent TPE between 2004 and 2010. Patients were divided into two groups based on pathology: colorectal (n = 36) versus non-colorectal (n = 17) malignancies. Demographics, operative reports, pathology reports, periprocedural events, and outcomes were analyzed. Comparison of the two groups was performed using student’s t-test and Fisher’s exact test. Survival curves were constructed using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared using the log rank test.ResultsThe colorectal and non-colorectal groups were similar in demographics, operative times, length of stay, estimated blood loss, and rates of preoperative and intraoperative radiation use. Chemotherapy use was increased in the colorectal group compared with the non-colorectal group (55.6% vs. 23.5%, P = 0.04). Complication rates were similar: 86% in the colorectal group and 76% in the non-colorectal group. In the colorectal group, 27.8% of patients developed perineal abscesses, whereas no patients developed these complications in the non-colorectal group (P = 0.02). No survival difference was seen in primary versus recurrent colorectal tumors; however, within the colorectal group there was a survival advantage when comparing R0 resection to R1 and R2 resection combined. Median survival rates were 27.3 months for R0 resection and 10.7 months for R1 and R2 resection combined. The median survival was 21.4 months for the colorectal group and 6.9 months for the non-colorectal group (P = 0.002).ConclusionsPatients undergoing TPE for colorectal tumors have improved survival when compared with patients undergoing exenteration for pelvic malignancies of other origins. Within the colorectal group, the extent of resection demonstrated a significant survival benefit of an R0 resection compared with R1 and R2 resections. Despite TPE carrying a high morbidity rate, mortality rates have improved and careful patient selection can optimize outcomes.

Reconstruction of total pelvic exenteration defects with rectus abdominus myocutaneous flaps versus primary closure

BACKGROUND Total pelvic exenteration (TPE) is reserved for patients with locally invasive and recurrent pelvic malignancies. Complications such as wound infections, dehiscence, hernias, abscesses, and fistulas are common after this procedure. The purpose of this study was to determine whether tissue transfer to the pelvis after TPE decreases wound complications. METHODS Fifty-three patients who underwent TPE between 2004 and 2010 were reviewed. Two groups were identified, those who underwent pelvic reconstruction with a vertical rectus abdominus myocutaneous flap (n = 17) and those who underwent primary closure (n = 36). Demographics, clinicopathologic characteristics, and outcomes were compared. RESULTS The 2 groups were similar in demographics and histopathologic characteristics. Preoperative and surgical factors including comorbidities, nutrition, radiation, surgical times, blood loss, length of stay, and complications were similar between the groups. Of the 17 patients undergoing vertical rectus abdominus myocutaneous flap placement, complications were seen in 11 patients (65%), with most of them stemming from flap dehiscence (n = 7). CONCLUSIONS In our study, the transfer of tissue into the pelvis did not increase surgical times, blood loss, length of stay, or wound complications.

Single Institution Experience Comparing Double-barreled Wet Colostomy to Ileal Conduit for Urinary and Fecal Diversion

OBJECTIVE To compare outcomes and feasibility of double-barreled wet colostomy and ileal conduit (IC) in patients undergoing total pelvic exenteration (TPE). METHODS Between 2004 and 2010, 54 patients underwent TPE for pelvic malignancies. Of those patients, 53 had complete records available for analysis. Two groups were identified based on the technique used for urinary diversion, either by way of an IC or a double-barreled wet colostomy (DBWC). Demographics, comorbidities, complications, length of stay, operative times, morbidity, and mortality were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS Forty-three patients (81%) underwent a DBWC and ten patients (19%) underwent an IC. The 2 groups were similar in terms of age, gender, and comorbidities. Eighteen patients underwent an R0 resection (39%) and twenty-eight (61%) patients had a non-R0 resection. Seven patients (13%) had a complete response to therapy with no evidence of malignancy. A majority of the patients (68%) undergoing TPE had colorectal histology. Thirty-day morbidity directly related to complications of urinary or fecal diversion was 78% in the DBWC group and 58% in the IC group. There was no perioperative mortality in either group. CONCLUSION DBWC is a safe and feasible alternative to the traditional IC for urinary diversion. This technique is easy to learn and is associated with similar operative times, length of stay, morbidity, and mortality compared with IC.

Colosplenic contained perforation secondary to colonic lymphoma.

We present the case of patient with colosplenic perforation from a colonic lymphoma. He initially was diagnosed with a splenic abscess subsequently developed a contained colonic perforation, underwent surgical treatment and intraoperatively was diagnosed with lymphoma. This is a rare entity in a non-immunocompromised host and has been scarcely reported.