Difficult hemostasis during radical pelvic surgery

Intraoperative urinary tract resection and construction in CRS + HIPEC procedures: a single center retrospective analysis

INTRODUCTION

The safety and efficacy of CRS + HIPEC combined with urinary tract resection and reconstruction are controversial. This study aims to summarize the clinicopathological features and to evaluate the safety and survival prognosis of CRS + HIPEC combined with urinary tract resection and reconstruction.

METHODS

The patients who underwent urinary tract resection and reconstruction as part of CRS surgery were retrospectively selected from our disease-specific database for analysis. The clinicopathological characteristics, treatment-related variables, perioperative adverse events (AEs), and survival outcomes were studied using a descriptive approach and the K-M analysis with log-rank comparison.

RESULTS

Forty-nine patients were enrolled. Perioperative serious AEs (SAEs) were observed in 11 patients (22.4%), with urinary SAEs occurring in 3 patients (6.1%). Additionally, there were 23 cases (46.8%) involving urinary adverse events (UAEs). The median overall survival (OS) in the entire cohort was 59.2 (95%CI: 42.1-76.4) months. The median OS of the UAE group and No-UAE group were 59.2 months (95%CI not reached), and 50.5 (95%CI: 11.5 to 89.6) months, respectively, with no significant difference (P = 0.475). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in OS based on the grade of UAEs or the number of UAEs (P = 0.562 and P = 0.622, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The combination of CRS + HIPEC with urinary tract resection and reconstruction is associated with a high incidence of Grade I-II UAEs, which do not have an impact on OS. The safety profile of this combined technique is acceptable. However, this is a retrospective single-center single-arm analysis, with limitations of generalizability and potential selection bias. The findings need high-level validation.

Total Pelvic Exenteration, Cytoreductive Surgery, and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Rectal Cancer with Associate Peritoneal Metastases: Surgical Strategies to Optimize Safety

Simple Summary

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a curative treatment for patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Pelvic exenteration is an established treatment option for locally advanced pelvic malignancy. Based on the argument that high-risk complications arise from each procedure, the majority of researchers do not recommend performing a CRS/HIPEC with pelvis exenteration. Herein, we critically analyzed the data from 16 patients treated by these two procedures for 15 rectal and one appendiceal adenocarcinomas. Clear resection (R0) margins were achieved in 81.2% of cases. The median hospital stay was 46 days (26–129), and nine patients (56.2%) experienced severe complications that led to death in two cases (12.5%). Survival rates were not clarified, since the follow-up is ongoing. Pelvis exenteration associated with CRS/HIPEC may be a reasonable procedure in selected patients at expert centers. Pelvic involvement should not be considered a definitive contraindication for CRS/HIPEC if a R0 resection could be achieved. However, the morbidity and the mortality are high with this combination of treatment, and further research is needed to assess the oncologic benefit and quality of life before such a radical approach can be recommended.

Abstract

Background: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a curative treatment option for patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Total pelvic exenteration (TPE) is an established treatment option for locally advanced pelvic malignancy. These two procedures have high mortality and morbidity, and therefore, their combination is not currently recommended. Herein, we reported our experience on TPE associated with CRS/HIPEC with a critical analysis for rectal cancer with associate peritoneal metastases. Methods: From March 2006 to August 2020, 319 patients underwent a CRS/HIPEC in our hospital. Among them, 16 (12 men and four women) underwent an associated TPE. The primary endpoints were perioperative morbidity and mortality. Results: There was locally recurrent rectal cancer in nine cases, six locally advanced primary rectal cancer, and a recurrent appendiceal adenocarcinoma. The median Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) was 8. (4–16). Mean duration of the surgical procedure was 596 min (420–840). Complete cytoreduction (CC0) was achieved in all patients, while clear resection (R0) margins on the resected pelvic organs were achieved in 81.2% of cases. The median hospital stay was 46 days (26–129), and nine patients (56.2%) experienced severe complications (grade III to V) that led to death in two cases (12.5%). The total reoperation rate for patients was 6/16 (37.5%) and 3/16 (18.75%) with percutaneous radiological-guided drainage. Conclusions: In summary, TPE/extended TPE (ETPE) associated with CRS/HIPEC may be a reasonable procedure in selected patients at expert centers. Pelvic involvement should not be considered a definitive contraindication for CRS/HIPEC in patients with resectable peritoneal surface diseases if a R0 resection could be achieved on all sites. However, the morbidity and the mortality are high with this combination of treatment, and further research is needed to assess the oncologic benefit and quality of life before such a radical approach can be recommended.