Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_759_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Foreword
- •Preface
- •Acknowledgments
- •Introduction
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •Risk Factors
- •Prevention
- •Chemoprophylaxis
- •Preoperative Chemoprophylaxis
- •Mechanical Prophylaxis
- •Early Mobilization
- •Extended Postoperative Chemoprophylaxis
- •Prophylactic IVC Filters
- •Diagnosis
- •Imaging
- •Treatment
- •Therapeutic Anticoagulation
- •Medication Options
- •IVC Filter Placement
- •References
- •1: Perioperative Venous Thromboembolism
- •Background
- •Epidemiology
- •Preoperative Considerations
- •Intraoperative Considerations
- •Postoperative Considerations
- •Future Directions
- •Thromboembolic Events
- •Prehabilitation
- •Immunonutrition
- •Summary
- •References
- •3: Frailty
- •Frailty
- •Assessing Frailty
- •Interventions Following Frailty Assessment
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •(Neo)Adjuvant Therapy
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Uterine Perforation
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •References
- •6: Hysterectomy
- •Introduction
- •Hemorrhage
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Bladder Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Ureteral Injury
- •Background
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Bowel Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Urinary Tract Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Bowel Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Nerve Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Postoperative Considerations
- •Prolapse Recurrence
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •References
- •7: Genital Tract Prolapse
- •Intraoperative Injuries
- •Vascular Injury
- •Background
- •Introduction
- •Injectable Therapy
- •An Overview
- •Complications
- •Retention
- •De Novo Irritative Voiding Symptoms
- •Mid-Urethral Slings (MUS)
- •An Overview
- •Tension-Free Vaginal Tape (TVT)
- •Transobturator Tape (TOT)
- •Single-Incision Slings (SIS)
- •Complications
- •Mesh Erosion
- •Bladder Injury
- •Pain
- •Voiding Dysfunction
- •De Novo Irritative Voiding Symptoms
- •Recurrent Incontinence
- •Pubovaginal Slings (PVS)
- •An Overview
- •Complications
- •Bladder Perforation
- •Urinary Retention
- •De Novo Irritative Voiding Symptoms
- •Recurrent Incontinence
- •Retropubic Suspensions
- •An Overview
- •Complications
- •Voiding Dysfunction
- •Recurrent Incontinence
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •9: Urethral Diverticulectomy
- •Diagnosis
- •Surgical Management
- •Complications Following Urethral Diverticulectomy
- •Stress Urinary Incontinence
- •De Novo SUI
- •Urethrovaginal Fistula
- •Urethral Stricture
- •Recurrent Urethral Diverticulum
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •10: Segmental or Total Female Urethrectomy
- •Meatotomy
- •Stress Urinary Incontinence (SUI) After Partial Urethrectomy
- •Pubovaginal Slings (PVSs)
- •Pubovaginal Sling Erosion
- •References
- •11: Transurethral Bladder Surgery
- •Introduction
- •Bladder Perforation
- •Cystitis: Infection/Urinary Tract Infection (UTI)
- •Summary
- •References
- •12: Partial Cystectomy
- •Introduction
- •Preoperative Workup
- •Surgical Technique
- •Complications
- •Oncological Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Surgical Approach
- •Complications by Category
- •Genitourinary
- •Infection
- •Gastrointestinal
- •Cardiopulmonary
- •Bleeding/Thromboembolic
- •Neurological
- •Cerebrovascular Accident/Stroke
- •Delirium/Agitation
- •Miscellaneous
- •Lymphocele
- •Organ-Sparing Cystectomy (Uterus-, Fallopian Tube-, Ovary-Sparing)
- •Ovary Removal Risks (Bone Loss, Fracture Risk, Cardiac Events, Cognitive Decline, Mortality)
- •Vaginal Complications
- •References
- •14: Complications in Orthotopic Neobladders
- •Introduction
- •Early Postoperative Complications
- •Long-Term Complications
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Ileocecal Reservoirs
- •Colonic Reservoirs
- •Ileal Reservoirs
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Stoma-Related Complications
- •Parastomal Hernia
- •Stomal Stenosis
- •Ureterointestinal Stricture
- •Infection
- •Enterocutaneous Fistula
- •Anastomotic Leak
- •Conduit Necrosis
- •Metabolic Disturbances
- •Additional Thoughts
- •References
- •Background
- •Management
- •References
- •18: Ureteroscopy
- •Introduction
- •Intraoperative Complications
- •Ureteral Wall Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Bleeding
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Management
- •Early Postoperative Complications
- •Vascular Anomalies
- •Background
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Ureteral Stent Discomfort
- •Premature Labor
- •Ureteral Stent Migration
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Intravascular Stent Misplacement
- •Post-Obstructive Diuresis
- •Late Postoperative Complications
- •Ureteral Strictures
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Neglected Stents
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Perforation
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Bleeding
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Abscesses
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Strictures
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Fecal Incontinence
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Urinary Retention
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •References
- •Cryptoglandular Pathophysiology—Abscess
- •Fistula-in-Ano
- •Fistulotomy
- •Seton Placement
- •Fistula Plugs/Fibrin Glue
- •Endorectal Advancement Flap (ERAF)
- •Minimally Invasive Approaches
- •Mesenchymal Stem Cell (MSC) Therapy
- •Complex Advanced Fistula Therapy
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •21: Fecal Incontinence
- •Treatment
- •Anal Insertion Devices
- •Vaginal Bowel Control Systems
- •Bulking Agents
- •Radio-Frequency Tissue Remodeling (SECCA®)
- •Percutaneous Tibial Nerve Stimulation (PTNS)
- •Sacral Nerve Neuromodulation (SNM)
- •Surgical Sphincter Repair (Sphincteroplasty)
- •Ventral Mesh Rectopexy (VMR)
- •Other Treatments
- •References
- •General Background
- •Preoperative Procedural Considerations
- •General Abdominal Surgery Complications
- •Hemorrhagic Complications During Rectopexy
- •Mesh Complications
- •Discitis
- •Intra-Abdominal Collections/Seromas/Abscesses
- •Ureteral Injury
- •Bowel Obstruction
- •Anastomotic Leaks
- •Postoperative Pain
- •Perineal Surgery
- •Multicompartment Prolapse Repairs
- •Postoperative Constipation/Fecal Impaction
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Vascular Injury
- •Bowel Injury
- •Management
- •Major Vascular Injury
- •Carbon Dioxide Embolism
- •Bowel Injury
- •Background
- •Recognition
- •Incision Site Hernia
- •Background
- •Recognition
- •Respiratory Mechanics
- •Preoperative Evaluation
- •Positioning
- •Trendelenburg Complications
- •Cardiopulmonary
- •Ocular Complications
- •Peripheral Nerve Injury
- •References
- •Background
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment
- •The General Surgical Approach
- •Nerve-Sparing Surgery
- •Bladder Endometriosis
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment
- •Ureteral Endometriosis (UE)
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment
- •Ureteral Complications
- •Diagnosis
- •Surgical Treatment
- •Shaving Excision
- •Laparoscopic Disk Excision
- •Segmental Resection
- •Bowel Complications
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Intraoperative Complications
- •Early Postoperative Complications
- •Surgical Site Infections
- •Late Postoperative Complications
- •Anastomotic/Pouch Fistulas
- •Infertility
- •Sexual Dysfunction
- •Unhealed Perineal Wound
- •Entrapped Ovary (Inclusion Cyst)
- •Summary
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Genitourinary Complications
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Urinary Tract
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Bladder Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Vascular Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Neurologic Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •References
- •27: Cesarean Section
- •Introduction
- •Postpartum Hemorrhage
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Unintended Hysterotomy Extension
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Uterine Scar Dehiscence
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Uterine Inversion
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Post-Cesarean Infection
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •References
- •28: Management of Ectopic Pregnancy and Surgical Considerations
- •Background
- •Tubal Ectopic Pregnancy
- •Prevention
- •Laparoscopy Versus Laparotomy
- •Recognition
- •Massive Hemorrhage, Hemodynamic Instability
- •Nondiagnostic Laparoscopy
- •Management
- •Hemoperitoneum
- •Nontubal Ectopic Pregnancy
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Interstitial
- •Ovarian
- •References
- •29: Surgical Abortion
- •Introduction
- •Hemorrhage
- •Uterine Atony
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Abnormal Placentation
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Acute Coagulopathy
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Cervical Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Uterine Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Infection
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •30: Cesarean Hysterectomy
- •Introduction
- •Obstetric Hemorrhage
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Surgical Site Infection
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Massive Obstetric Hemorrhage
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Disseminated Intravascular Coagulopathy (DIC)
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Urologic Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •References
- •31: Inguinal Lymphadenectomy, Radical Vulvectomy
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Vascular Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Lymphedema
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Nerve Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Ureteral Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Duodenum
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Arterial Embolization
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Management
- •References
- •33: Radical Hysterectomy
- •Introduction
- •Ureteral Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Bladder Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Rectal Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Bladder Dysfunction
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Colorectal Dysfunction
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Surgical Site Infection
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Sexual Dysfunction
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •References
- •Vascular Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Post-Operative Bleeding/Hematoma
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Urinary Tract Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Anastomotic Leak
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Bowel Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Anastomotic Bleeding
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Anastomotic Stricture
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •References
- •35: Anal Cancer
- •Introduction
- •Perineal Wound Infection/Dehiscence
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Acute
- •Chronic
- •Pelvic Fluid Collections/Abscesses/Organ Space Infections
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Perineal Hernia
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Small Bowel Obstruction
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Large Bowel Obstruction
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Fecal Incontinence
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Rectovaginal Fistula
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Radiation Enteritis
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Sigmoid Stricture Formation
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Anastomotic Leak
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •AL Requiring Operative Intervention
- •Endosponge
- •Local Repairs
- •Anastomotic Stricture
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Anastomotic Bleeding
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Presacral Venous Bleeding
- •Background
- •Recognition
- •Prevention
- •Management
- •Low Anterior Resection Syndrome
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Treatment
- •References
- •37: Pelvic Radiation Therapy
- •Introduction
- •External Beam Radiation Therapy
- •Brachytherapy
- •Radiotherapy Toxicity
- •Toxicities by System
- •Bladder/Ureters/Urethra
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Small Bowel
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Colon/Rectum
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Anus/Vulva/Skin
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Uterus
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Ovaries
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Vagina
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Vascular/Lymphatics/Nerves
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •References
- •38: Pelvic Exenteration for Central Pelvic Cancer
- •Introduction
- •Pre-Operative Considerations
- •Intra-Operative Complications
- •WHO Checklist
- •Post-Operative Complications
- •Immediate
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Summary
- •References
- •Nerve Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Vascular Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Hardware Failure/Mechanical Complications
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Pelvic Cancer Complications Involving Bone
- •Osteomyelitis
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Radiation Osteitis
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Radiation Associated Sarcomas
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Wound Healing Considerations
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •References
- •41: Pelvic Reconstructive Procedures
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Preoperative
- •Intraoperative
- •Postoperative
- •Recognition
- •Fluid Collection
- •Infection
- •Partial or Total Flap Loss
- •Fistula
- •Donor Site Complications
- •Management
- •Fluid Collection
- •Infection
- •Partial or Total Flap Loss
- •Fistula
- •Donor Site Complications
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Index

38 Pelvic Exenteration for Central Pelvic Cancer
435
prior radiotherapy or long-term stenting, the
rate is higher. To avoid anastamotic stricture,
the anastomosis should be under low tension,
the ureteric spatulation should be of adequate
length with redundant ureteric tissue excised,
and the length of the ileal segment should be
adequate.
Ureteral stricture proximal to the anastomosis is more common on the left side. This is
because the ureter is further mobilised (which
can impair vascularity) and may be under
more tension on the left to be able to join the
conduit which usually is brought out on the
right side. Such strictures are even more common in patients who have gynaecological cancers which have been previously treated with
high-dose pelvic radiotherapy. They are much
more common in such patients than those who
have had radiotherapy for colorectal cancer.
The majority of anastamotic ureteral stenoses
are treated by nephrostomy insertion, balloon
dilatation and stenting.
3. Lymphedema: This problem may affect one
or both legs, the vulva, perineum, and/or
reconstructive sites; for reasons that are not
apparent lymphedema may not manifest
until many months after PEx. It is often
asymmetrical. As it may be a sign of recurrent disease, this should be excluded by clinical examination and imaging. Signicant
lymphedema distorts body image and
reduces quality of life.
4. Abdominal wall problems: These can include
reduced truncal mobility and exibility. As
the shape and conguration of the abdomen
changes with increased laxity or herniation,
the changing contours of the abdominal wall
cause problems with application of stomal
devices. In severe cases, stomal function can
be compromised. Surgery to attempt to correct these problems is fraught with difculty
and is rarely considered.
5. Plastics reconstruction—discussed in
Chap. 41.
6. Psychosexual: There is some evidence that
patients who have had a vaginal reconstruction have improved psychosexual rehabilitation post-surgery. However, long-term data
pre- and post-surgery are scant. Vaginal
reconstruction does not necessarily achieve
satisfactory functional results and realistic
expectations should be set pre-operatively.
Progressive vaginal stenosis or persistent
discharge can develop.
7. Body image: Some or all of the changes
noted in the early postoperative period can be
improve or worsen with time.
8. Electrolyte/biochemical imbalances: These
can be subtle and are more common in those
who have had a urinary diversion. Some
patients will develop ViB12 deciency as a
result of reduced function of the terminal
ileum.
9. Quality of Life: There is evidence that QoL
is lower after PEx but then improves by
12months. Some suggest the baseline QoL
is reached at 6months [49], but other reports
indicate a more prolonged time to improved
quality of life and that older patients are less
likely to regain this [50, 51]. Consideration
should be given to starting or re-starting
HRT.
10. Perianal pain: In women who have undergone a supralevator procedure (when the
anal canal is preserved and where most often
the patient has a permanent colostomy),
tenesmoid pain may develop. When an anastomosis has been created, defecatory problems can persist.
11. Anorectal and urinary problems: When an
anterior PEx has been performed, an unintended consequence is that anorectal dysfunction can develop; likewise, when a
posterior PEx has been performed, the
patient can develop bladder dysfunction.
These problems can continue to worsen.
Pelvic recurrence can also present in a similar manner. Worsening of these problems
may require surgical intervention—a colostomy and urinary diversion, respectively.
Long-Term Beyond 12Months
The problems and complications that can develop
in the rst year after a PEx may improve or
worsen in the long-term. A dramatic or sudden
development of a new symptom might indicate

436
D. P. Barton et al.
further recurrence. Often there is more than one
problem that reduces the patient’s QoL [9, 50,
51]. The fear of relapse remains.
1. Stomal problems: these can develop and
worsen over time as abdominal wall weakness
develops. Some patients develop a true parastomal hernia. This can worsen with time, contribute to stomal and body image problems
and may not be improved by surgical appliances (abdominal wall supports). Surgery may
be considered but is often unsuccessful.
2. Hernia: Abdominal wall weakness is more
common than a true incisional hernia.
Parastomal weakness develops and can lead to
stomal prolapse, stomal retraction and stomal
stenosis, all of which can impair stomal function. Prolapse of the pelvic oor reconstruction can develop (see Chap. 26). Mechanical
support measures tend to be favoured over
surgical intervention. Vaginal reconstruction
can also herniate (see Chap. 41).
3. Lymphedema: Even in the absence of recurrent disease (which can present with lymphedema) this problem can develop many
months after the PEx. It may be precipitated
by a trivial injury to the lower limb, especially
if cellulitis develops.
4. Renal impairment: This can be insidious in
onset and regular biochemical proles should
be checked, which should include chloride
and bicarbonate levels.
5. Plastics reconstruction—Chap. 41.
6. Psychosexual: See above. Progressive vaginal
stenosis can develop despite vaginal dilatation.
7. Body image and QoL: Some or all of the
changes noted in the early postoperative
period may improve or worsen with time.
8. Electrolyte imbalances: These can be subtle
and are more common in those who have had
a urinary diversion.
Conclusion
PEx is a major surgical undertaking requiring the
coordination of multiple teams in the decision
making, surgery and aftercare. It is associated
with signicant complications during and after
surgery, in the short and long-term, in at least
50% of patients. The pattern and severity of complications can change with time and affect quality
of life. Complications can also be a sign of recurrence. Patients who have had PEx require regular
and long-term surveillance and support from
multiple health professionals. Arguably, patients
do best in terms of oncologic outcome, QoL and
complications when cared for by an experienced
team.
References
1. Brunschwig A. Complete excision of pelvic viscera for advanced carcinoma: a one-stage abdominoperineal operation with end colostomy and
bilateral ureteral implantation into the colon above
the colostomy. Cancer. 1948;1:177–83. https://doi.
org/10.1002/1097- 0142(194807)1:2<177::aid- cncr28
20010203>3.0.co;2- a.
2. The PelvEx Collaborative/a. Factors affecting outcomes following pelvic exenteration for locally recurrent rectal cancer. BJS. 2018;105:65–657. https://doi.
org/10.1002/bjs.10734.
3. The PelvEx Collaborative/b. Pelvic Exenteration for
advanced nonrectal pelvic malignancy. Ann Surg.
2019;270(5):899–905. https://doi.org/10.1097/
SLA.0000000000003533.
4. Lampe B, Luengas-Wurzinger V, Weotz J, et al.
Opportunities and limitations of pelvic exenteration surgery. Cancers. 2021;13:6162. https://doi.
org/10.3390/cancers13246162.
5. Cheng H, Clymer JW, Chen BP-H, et al. Prolonger
operative duration is associated with complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Surg
Res. 2018;229:134–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jss.2018.03.022.
6. Althumairi AA, Canner JK, Gorin MA, et al.
Reduction of costs for pelvic exenteration performed by high volume surgeons: analysis of the
Maryland Health Service Cost Revies Commission
database. Am Surg. 2016;82:46–52. https://doi.
org/10.1177/000313481608200123.
7. Dencker EE, Bonde A, Troelsen A, Varadarajan KM,
Silesen M. Postoperative complications: an observational study of trends in the United States from
2012 to 2018. BMC Surg. 2021;21:393. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s12893- 021- 021- 01392- z.
8. Fowler AJ, Yan YI, Prowle JR, et al. Long-term
mortality following complications after elective surgery: a secondary analysis of pooled
data from two prospective cohort studies. Br J
Anaes. 2022;129:588–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/
bja.2022.06.019.

38 Pelvic Exenteration for Central Pelvic Cancer
437
9. The PelvEx Collaborative/c. Palliative pelvic exenteration: a systematic review of patient-centred outcomes. 2019. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45:1787–95.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2019.06.011.
10. Koh CE, Solomon MJ, Brown KG, Byrne CM, Lee P,
Young JM.The evolution of pelvic exenteration practice at a single center: lessons learned from over 500
cases. Dis Colon Rectum. 2017;60:627–35. https://
doi.org/10.1097/DCR000000000000825.
11. Heald RJ. The ‘Holy Plane’ of rectal surgery.
J R Soc Med. 1988;81(9):503–8. https://doi.
org/10.1177/014107688808100904.
12. The PelvEx Collaborative/d. Changing outcomes following pelvic exenteration for locally advanced and
recurrent rectal cancer. BJS Open. 2019;3:516–20.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs5.50153.
13. The PelvEx Collaborative/e. Surgical and survival
outcomes following pelvic exenteration for locally
advanced primary rectal cancer: results from an international collaboration. Ann Surg. 2019;269(2) https://
doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002528.
14. Cunneen C, Kelly M, Nason G, Ryan E, Creavin B,
Winder D.The role of exenterative surgery in advanced
urological neoplasms. Curr Urol. 2020;14:57–65.
https://doi.org/10.1159/00499258.
15. Huang H, Yan B, Shang M, etal. Is hysterectomy benecial in radical cystectomy for female patient with
urothelial carcinoma of bladder? A retrospective analysis of consecutive 112 cases from a single institution. BMC Urol. 2019;19:28. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s12894- 019- 0461- 9.
16. The PelvEx Collaborative/f. Perioperative management and anaesthetic considerations in pelvic exenteration using Delphi methodology: results from
PelvEx Collaborative. BJS Open. 2021; https://doi.
org/10.1093/bjsopen/zraa055.
17. Carvalho F, Qiu S, Panagi V, etal. Total pelvic exenteration surgery- considerations for healthcare professionals. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2023;49:225–36. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.esjo.20222.08.011.
18. Modrall JG, Minter MA, etal. The surgeon volumeoutcome relationship: not yet ready for policy. Ann
Surg. 2018;267:863–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/
SLA0000000000002334.
19. Climent M, Pera M. Preoperative optimization prior to exenteration. Chap 5. In: Winter
DC, Kelly ME, editors. Surgical management of
advanced pelvic cancer; 2021. p.45–51. https://doi.
org/10.1002/9781119518495.
20. Tortorella L, Casarin J, Mara KC, etal. Prediction of
short-term surgical complications in women undergoing pelvic exenteration for gynecological malignancies. Gyn Oncologia. 2019;152:151–6. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.10.036.
21. CKP N, Sorensen CHK, Funder JA.Complications
and survival after total pelvic exenteration. Eur J Surg
Oncol. 2022;48:1362–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ejso.2021.12.472.
22. Venchiarutti RL, Solomon MJ, Koh CE, Young JM,
Steffens D. Pushing the boundaries of pelvic exen-
teration by maintaining survival at the cost of morbidity. Brit J Surg. 2019;106:1391–403. https://doi.
org/10.1002/bjs.11203.
23. Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, Gold
J. Validation of a combined comorbidity index.
J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:1245–51. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0895- 4356(94)90129- 5.
24. Copeland GP.The POSSUM system of surgical audit.
Arch Surg. 2002;137:15–9. https://doi.org/10.1001/
arch- surg.137.115.
25. Shim S-H, Lee SJ, Dong M, etal. Prediction model
for 30-day morbidity after gynecological malignancy
surgery. PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0178610. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178610.
26. Van Kooten RT, Bahadoer RR, Peeters KCMJ,
et al. Preoperative risk factors for major postoperative complications after complex gastrointestinal cancer surgery: a systematic review. Eur J Surg
Oncol. 2021;47:3049–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
esgo.2021.07.021.
27. Dessai S, Fasal R, Dipon J, Adarsh D, Balasubramanian
S. Age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index and
30-day mortality in pelvic surgeries. South Asian J
Cancer. 2018;7:240–3. https://doi.org/10.4103/sajc.
sajc- 241- 17.
28. Harji DP, Williams A, McKigney N, Boissieras
L, Denost Q, Fearnhead NS, Jenkins JT, Grifths
B. Utilising quality of life outcomes trajectories to
aid patient decisions making in pelvic exenteration.
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2022;48:2238–49. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.esjo.2022.08.011.
29. Waljee J, McGlinn EP, Davus Sear E, Chubg
KC. Patient expectations and patient-reported outcomes in surgery: a systematic review. Surgery.
2014;155:799–808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
surg.2013.12.015.
30. Matsuo K, Mandelbaum Adams CL, etal. Performance
and outcome of pelvic exenteration for gynecologic
malignancies: a population-based study. Gynecol
Oncol. 2019;153:368–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ygyno.2019.02.002.
31. Maerz DA, BecklN SAJ, Gainsburg. Complications of
robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery distant from the
surgical site. Br J Anaes. 2017;118:492–503. https://
doi.org/10.1093/bja.aex003.
32. Bonello VA, Bhangu A, Fitzgerald JEF, Rasheed S,
Tekkis P. Intraoperative bleeding and haemostasis during pelvic surgery for locally advanced or
recurrent rectal cancer: a prospective evaluation.
Tech Coloproctol. 2014;18:887–93. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10151- 014- 1150- z.
33. Rogers AC, Jenkins JT, Rasheed S, et al. Towards
standardisation of technique for en bloc sacrectomy
for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer.
J Clin Med. 2021;10(21) https://doi.org/10.3390/
jcm10214921.
34. McCarthy ASE, Solomon MJ, Koh CE, Firouzbakht
A, Jackson SA, Steffens D.Quality of life and functional outcomes following pelvic exenteration and

438
D. P. Barton et al.
sacrectomy. Color Dis. 2020;22(5):521–8. https://doi.
org/10.1111/codi.15044.
35. Sasikumar A, Bhan C, Jenkins JT, Antoniou A,
Murphy J. Systematic review of pelvic exenteration
with en bloc sacrectomy for recurrent rectal adenocarcinoma: R0 resection predicts disease-free survival.
Dis Colon Rectum. 2017;60(3):346–52. https://doi.
org/10.1097/DCR.00000000000737.
36. Brown KGM, Solomon MJ, Lau YC, Steffens D,
Austin KKS, Lee PJ. Sciatic and femoral nerve
resection during extended radical surgery for
advanced pelvic tumours: long-term survival,
functional and quality-of-life outcomes. Ann
Surg. 2021;273:982–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/
SLA.0000000000003390.
37. Manrique OJ, Rajesh A, Asaad M, etal. Surgical outcomes after abdominoperineal resection with sacrectomy and soft tissue reconstruction: lessons learned.
J Reconstr Microsurg. 2020;36(1):64–72. https://doi.
org/10.1055/s- 0039- 1697629.
38. Lim JS, Koh CE, Liu H, Solomon MJ, Johnstone
CSH. The price we pay for radical curative pelvic
exenterations: prevalence and management of pain.
Dis Colon Rectum. 2018;61(3):314–9. https://doi.
org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000001013.
39. Davis NF, Burke JP, McDermott TED, Flynn R,
Manecksha RP, Thornhill JA.Bricker versus Wallace
anastomosis: a meta-analysis of ureteroenteric stricture rates after ileal conduit urinary diversion. Can
Urol Assoc J. 2015;9(5–6):E284–90. https://doi.
org/10.5489/cuaj.2692.
40. Mattei A, Birkhaeuser FD, Baermann C, Warncke SH,
Studer UE.To stent or not to stent perioperatively the
ureteroileal anastomosis of ileal orthotopic bladder
substitutes and ileal conduits? Results of a prospective randomized trial. J Urol. 2008;179(2):582–6.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.09.066.
41. Hautmann R, Hautmann S, Hautmann
O. Complications associated with urinary diversion. Nat Rev Urol. 2011;8:667–77. https://doi.
org/10.1038/nrurol.2011.147.
42. Carter MF, Dalton DP, Garnett JE. Simultaneous
diversion of the urinary and faecal streams utilizing
a single abdominal stoma: the double-barrelled wet
colostomy. J Urol. 1989;141:1189–91. https://doi.
org/10.1016/s0022- 5347(17)41210- 9.
43. Urh A, Soliman PT, Schmeler KM, Westin S,
Frumovitz M, Nick AM, Fellman B, Urbauer DL,
Ramirez PT. Postoperative outcomes after continent versus incontinent urinary diversion at the time
of pelvic exenteration for gynecologic malignancies. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;129:580–5. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.gyno.2013.02.024.
44. Ban KA, Minei JP, Laronmga C, et al. American
College of Surgeons and surgical infection society:
surgical site infection guidelines, 2016 update. J Am
Coll Surg. 2017;224:59–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jamcollsurg.2016.10.029.
45. https://www.nice.org.uk. Surgical site infections: pre-
vention and treatment. 9NICE guideline [NG125].
46. Persson P, Ching P, Steele CW, Quinn M.Prevention
and management of complications in pelvic exenteration. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2022;48:2277–83. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ejso.2021.12.470.
47. Johnson YL, West MA, Gould L, etal. Empty pelvis
syndrome: a systematic review of reconstruction techniques and their associated complications. Color Dis.
2022;24:16–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.15956.
48. Sutton PA, Brown KGM, Ebrahimi N, et al. Longterm surgical complications following pelvic exenteration: operative management of the empty pelvis
syndrome. Color Dis. 2022;24:1491. https://doi.
org/10.1111/codi.16238.
49. Steffens D, Solomon MJ, Young JM, et al. Cohort
study of long-term survival and quality of life following pelvic exenteration. BJS Open. 2018;2:328–35.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs5.75.
50. Martinez A, Filleron T, Rouanet P, etal. Prospective
assessment of rst-year quality of life after pelvic exenteration for gynecologic malignancy: a French multicentric study. Ann Sur Oncologia. 2018;25:535–41.
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434- 017- 6120- z.
51. Armbruster SD, Sun AA, Westin SN, Bodurka DC,
Ramondetta L, Meyer LA, Soliman PT. Prospective
assessment of patient-reported outcomes in gynecologic cancer patients before and after pelvic exenteration. Gynecol Oncol. 2018;149:484–90. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.gyno.2018.03054.
52. Dessole M, Petrillo M, Lucidi A, etal. Quality of life
after pelvic exenteration for gynecological malignancies. Int J Gyn Cancer. 2018;28:267–73. https://doi.
org/10.1097/IGC.000000000000612.

Resection ofRecurrent Pelvic
Sidewall Tumor
JamesD.McDonald andRicardoJ.Gonzalez
39
Introduction
Recurrent tumors of the pelvic sidewall are
extremely difcult to manage as they commonly
involve major nerves, vessels, and urinary tract
structures including the ureters and bladder
(Fig.39.1 CT images). Often, these patients with
pelvic recurrence have had prior pelvic surgery,
systemic treatment, and radiation therapy.
Unfortunately, when these tumors recur the treatment options available to maintain durable local
control are limited as the disease has proven to be
refractory to traditional or rst-line therapies.
Furthermore, depending on previous treatments,
additional radiation may not be tolerable or effective. In these cases, extended surgical resection
may be the only chance for disease control. The
ability to achieve an R0 resection is the best predictor of survival in patients with pelvic sarcomas and tumors of gynecologic, urologic, and
colorectal origin [1–4]. Unfortunately, however,
traditional surgical approaches resulted in high
complication rates and dismal outcomes in regard
J. D. McDonald
Department of Surgery, University Surgixal
Oncology, University of Tennessee Graduate School
of Medicine, Knoxville, TN, USA
e-mail: James.McDonald@moftt.org
R. J. Gonzalez (*)
Sarcoma Department, Moftt Cancer Center,
Tampa, FL, USA
e-mail: Ricardo.Gonzalez@moftt.org
to the ability to achieve negative resection margins in patients with pelvic sidewall invasion. For
these reasons, sidewall involvement was long
considered an absolute contraindication to surgery [1, 5].
With the increased utility of pelvic exenteration as a method to obtain better local control,
achieve negative resection margins, and improve
survival with an acceptable morbidity and mortality rate there has been renewed interest in improving surgical approaches to address recurrent
disease involving the pelvic sidewall in patients
with gynecologic, urologic, and colorectal malignancies as well as soft tissue sarcomas. The utilization of extended pelvic resection for gynecologic
malignancies was documented in the literature as
early as the 1940s, but it did not gain traction until
the late 1990s when Hockel rst published his
technique for resection in patients with pelvic
wall recurrence [6, 7]. While the experience in
extended sidewall resection for gynecologic
malignancies grew, extending the indications for
pelvic sidewall resection for colorectal malignancies also began to gain traction [8, 9]. As techniques for extended sidewall resection developed
over time, there has been an improvement in R0
resection rates to as high as 66% with en bloc
resection of vascular and other involved sidewall
structures [10]. With increasing utilization of
“ultra-radical” resection strategies to achieve R0
resection, there must be a clear understanding of
the risks involved, with the overall complication
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2025
M. Hoffman et al. (eds.), Major Complications of Female Pelvic Surgery,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-66772-5_39
439

440
ab
Internal
ry
Obturat
int
P
Fig. 39.1 Cross-sectional imaging showing pelvic sidewall disease involving the bifurcation of the CIA (a), as well as
the acetabulum, bladder, and into the femoral canal (b)
J. D. McDonald and R. J. Gonzalez
External
iliac artery
or nerve
and vessels
Obturator
ernus muscle
Inferior gluteal
artery
udendal nerve
Sacrotuberous
ligament
Sacrospinous
ligament
Fig. 39.2 Complex pelvic sidewall anatomy, with anatomic relationship of the boney pelvis, ureter, and major neurovascular structures
rate approaching 80%, and the major complication rate approaching 30% [10, 11].
At the fundamental level, the principal factor
in the prevention of injury and complications
during resection of recurrent pelvic sidewall
tumors is to have a detailed and intimate knowl-
External
iliac vein
iliac artery
and vein
Ureter
edge of the relevant surgical anatomy of this area
(Fig.39.2 anatomy gures). A thorough description of the pelvic sidewall surgical anatomy and
the lumbosacral triangle was rst described and
published by Maurice Marcille, a Parisian surgeon and anatomist, in his text “Lymphatiques et
Common illac
artery and vein
Lumbosacral
trunk
S1
Lateral sacral
artery
Internal
pudendal arte
Sciatic nerve

39 Resection ofRecurrent Pelvic Sidewall Tumor
441
ganglions ilio-pelviens” in 1903 [12]. This area
is considered the entryway to the pelvis and contains the ureter and the major neurovascular
structures of the pelvis. More recently as surgeons have worked to improve the surgical
approaches to the pelvic sidewall there has been
a renewed interest in the surgical anatomy of this
area [13]. While the focus of this chapter is the
complications frequently encountered during the
resection of recurrent pelvic sidewall tumors, the
complication risk can be greatly reduced by
thorough preoperative planning, appropriate
knowledge of the relevant pelvic anatomy, and
appropriate coordination with a multidisciplinary team that will frequently require
Gynecologic Oncology, Surgical Oncology,
Colorectal Surgery, Vascular Surgery, Urology,
Neurosurgery and Plastics and Reconstructive
Surgery.
Bowel Injury andComplications
Background
When attempting resection in patients with a
recurrent pelvic sidewall tumor, it is important to
understand and expect that these patients will
have varying degrees of adhesions from prior surgery and/or radiation to the pelvis. Adhesions are
often dense and frequently involve the large and
small intestines we as the abdominopelvic sidewall and retroperitoneal structures. The initial
step in any reoperative pelvic surgery is adhesiolysis to gain adequate exposure to the pelvis.
During this lysis of adhesions both intentional
and unintentional bowel injuries occur and the
implications of this are typically determined by
the timing with which these injuries are recognized. Additionally, when adhesions to the bowel
mesentery are present, lysis of adhesions can
result in segmental intestinal devascularization.
depending on the extent, may not be immediately
evident. An unrecognized thermal bowel injury
may present hours to days after the index operation. When it is determined that the adhesions
between structures are too dense to safely attempt
separation, segmental bowel resection is prudent.
In these scenarios, our practice is to avoid any
resection until the remainder of the involved bowel
has been safely freed from surrounding structures.
This approach minimizes the length of the bowel
that requires resection and limits the number of
anastomoses required for reconstruction.
Recognition
When dense adhesions are encountered during
the initial stages of the operation, prompt recognition requires a high index of suspicion for
potential bowel injury. Full-thickness injuries are
easily identied immediately as there is stool or
succus noted from the dissected area. Serosal
injuries on the other hand are not as clear to the
naked eye. When there is a concern for serosal
injury, we will typically place a marking stitch in
the area to re-evaluate the severity of the injury
after a period of time. Another practice we
employ to avoid any missed bowel injuries is to
run the bowel and inspect it for any injured areas
or devitalized segments. The bowel is run after
completion of adhesiolysis and prior to placing
retractors necessary to gain exposure to the pelvis, and then again at the end of the case. This
duration of time allows for any suspicious area to
declare or demarcate and to distinguish viable
from non-viable bowel, especially in cases where
blood ow is compromised. If the blood supply
to a given segment of the bowel is in question, we
will typically use a portable sterile Doppler or
intraoperative indocyanine green uorescence
angiography to assess perfusion [14].
Prevention
In general, when performing enterolysis, the use
of electrocautery should be minimized to prevent
inadvertent thermal injury. Thermal injury,
Management
The management of small and large bowel injuries identied at the index operation range from
primary suture repair to segmental bowel resection with anastomosis. Partial thickness injuries

442
J. D. McDonald and R. J. Gonzalez
are typically closed transversely using a Lembert
suture technique to achieve the apposition of
healthy bowel serosa [15]. A full-thickness
small bowel injury involving less than 50% of
the circumference is debrided back to healthy
tissue and closed transversely to prevent narrowing of the lumen. Full-thickness bowel injuries are typically closed in two layers with the
rst layer performed in an interrupted or running fashion with care to take a healthy bite of
serosa and a small bite of mucosa. A second
layer of interrupted Lembert sutures is used to
imbricate the rst layer. While techniques vary,
when a bowel resection is required, our practice
is to perform a stapled side-to-side (functional
end-to-end) anastomosis with sutured or stapled
closure of the common enterotomy. A single or
two-layer hand-sewn anastomosis is also an
appropriate option. The choice between the different techniques is surgeon preference and
there is no difference in complication rates
between the two [16].
Urinary Tract Injury
andComplications
Background
Prevention
While there is conicting data on the routine use
of prophylactic ureteral stents in gynecologic and
colorectal surgery to prevent injury, they are benecial to assist in early ureteral identication
when performing preoperative surgery, especially
in the setting of previous radiation and bulky
tumors [18–20]. With or without prophylactic
stents, the safest way to identify the ureters early
is to identify and isolate them in their normal
anatomic position proximal to the previously
operated eld. Once identied, a vessel loop is
placed around the ureter to assist in safe dissection and mobilization as it tracks down into the
pelvis crossing the bifurcation of the common
iliac artery, running medial to the internal iliac
artery along the pelvic sidewall before entering
the bladder posterlaterally. When mobilizing the
ureter, it is important to remember that it has a
segmental blood supply and in the pelvis, the
blood supply for the ureter travels from the lateral vessels to the adventitial layer. Care should
be taken to minimize dissection lateral to the ureter especially as it enters the bladder and to preserve the adventitia, in order to prevent ischemic
injuries that may result in delayed urinary complications such as stricture or stula [21].
Injury and complications related to the urinary
system during the resection of recurrent pelvic
sidewall tumors are common. Up to 25% of
patients experience a urinary-related complication that may include urinary retention, ureteral
stula, stricture, hydronephrosis, and/or bladder injury [10, 17]. When there is a planned
ureteral resection and urinary diversion, the
ureters are identied early but ligation and transection are reserved until the ureters have been
dissected free to the level of tumor involvement. As the surgical plan moves urinary diversion to planned bladder preservation with the
goal of maintaining bladder and ureteral continuity, the rate of ureteral injury increases. For
this reason, preoperative ureteral stents are frequently employed to aid in early ureteral identication, and potentially identify injuries more
readily.
Recognition
Intraoperatively, when ureteral stents are present,
an injury is quickly and easily identied by visualizing the bright-colored stent through the ureteral defect. When stents are not placed, or when
the injury is not immediately apparent then it
may become evident by an accumulation of clear
uid in the surgical eld. This can be conrmed
by the administration of intravenous uorescein
which will turn urine green. When operating in
the vicinity of the ureter within a difcult
operative eld, the surgeon must maintain a high
level of vigilance. If a suspicious-looking tubular
structure is transected or a lumen is identied in
divided tissue, then further investigation to determine ureteral patency is required. If further dissection proves difcult or fruitless, then a

39 Resection ofRecurrent Pelvic Sidewall Tumor
443
cystoscopy should be performed to look for
efux of urine from the ureteral orices. This is
aided, if necessary, by the intravenous administration of 0.1 cc of uorescein (followed by a
10 cc intravenous ush). Passage of a ureteral
stent may also be attempted, with or without retrograde pyelography.
Delayed or missed ureteral injury can present
as a urinoma, leakage of clear uid from a wound
(i.e. vagina) or drain, a prolonged ileus, ank
pain, infection, hydronephrosis, or an unexplained rise in BUN and creatinine. When drains
are in place, the uid can be sent for a spot creatinine. Fluid creatinine at the level of
25–450mg/dL is consistent with urine. If drain
creatinine is equal to serum creatinine, then a
ureteral injury is much less likely. CT-urogram is
the imaging of choice to further evaluate the
integrity of the ureters and to identify the location of injury.
Management
This subject is covered in more detail in
Chap. 17.
Management of a ureteral injury is dependent
on the mechanism, extent, and location of the
injury, as well as the timing with which the injury
is identied. In general, if identied within
72 hours of surgery, the recommendation is for
re-exploration and repair of ureteral injury in the
operating room. If the patient is unstable,
infected, or has developed a urinoma, then temporary measures are taken. In these situations, if
Urology is not already a member of the multidisciplinary team a consultation is warranted to provide their expertise in managing these difcult
complications. Injury to the upper half of the ureter can typically be managed with direct ureteroureterostomy, or by anastomosis to the
contralateral ureter via transureteroureterostomy.
Lower ureteral injuries are managed with ureteral
reimplantation (which may include a psoas hitch)
or bladder remodeling such as a Boari ap. The
principles of ureteral repair are like other surgical
anastomoses; adequate perfusion and minimal
tension. Often this requires the injured ends to be
debrided back to healthy bleeding edges along
with adequate ureteral mobilization to ensure a
tension-free repair and a gently approximated
anastomosis with absorbable suture performed
over a stent.
An injury that has a delay in diagnosis or is
otherwise not amenable to repair in the operating
room is managed with a percutaneous nephrostomy tube (PCN), percutaneous drainage of any
urinoma, and subsequent ureteral stent placement
if possible. In these cases, denitive repair is
delayed until at least 6weeks after the injury is
stabilized.
Vascular Injury andComplications
Background
Vascular injury, in the context of extended lateral
resection due to recurrent pelvic sidewall tumor,
is a major intraoperative concern for surgeons.
Depending on the extent of vascular involvement
and resection necessary, there is an increase in
operative time and intraoperative blood loss.
When vascular reconstruction is required to
achieve R0 resection margins, operative time,
intraoperative blood loss, and vascular-related
complication rates increase. These include postoperative graft complications such as acute
thrombosis, distal limb ischemia leading to reperfusion injury and compartment syndrome, and
graft infection [22].
Prevention
The key to the prevention of vascular injury and
bleeding complications during reoperative pelvic
surgery is to have a detailed knowledge of pelvic
anatomy, understand the extent of disease as well
as the necessary resection based on preoperative
imaging, have a plan, and be prepared for a
vascular repair, resection, and reconstruction.
Finally, when need for vascular resection or isolation, the operating surgeon must adhere to the
tenants of exposure and proximal and distal vascular control.

444
J. D. McDonald and R. J. Gonzalez
Experienced surgeons begin their approach to
pelvic dissection by rst gaining proximal control of the common iliac artery (CIA) with circumferential control using a vessel loop to allow
for better retraction as your dissection proceeds
distally. Next, due to its overlying orientation to
the common iliac vein (CIV) circumferential dissection of the CIA is necessary to retract the
artery laterally and expose the CIV.Once the CIA
and CIV have been dissected out and controlled
with vessel loops proximal and distal to the
tumor, the dissection continues into the pelvis. As
the pelvic dissection proceeds, care must be taken
to control the branches of the ileopelvic arteriovenous system as these have the potential to
become a signicant source of bleeding. Next,
the internal iliac artery (IIA) and vein (IIV) and
external iliac artery (EIA) and vein (EIV) are
encountered. These vessels are dissected out and
circumferential control is once again obtained
using vessel loops. Depending on the extent of
resection it may be safe to proceed with ligation
and transection of the IIA with a stapler or a
suture ligature. Early division of the IIA allows
for exposure to the IIV and its draining branches.
These branches lie lateral to the IIA and can be
accessed and easily ligated with the exposure created from the early division and retraction of the
IIA.It is important to ligate the venous branches
draining into the IIV prior to its ligation and division. If the IIV remains distended after the
branches are ligated, you should be suspicious
that there is a posterior branch that will need to be
ligated prior to division. The inability to account
for this may lead to unexpected bleeding that is
often difcult to control. Ligation of the IIV will
not typically result in any decit. However, if
ligation of both the EIV and IIV or the CIV is
necessary due to tumor involvement, lower
extremity edema may be signicant postoperatively. However, this tends to be self-limited if
collateral drainage is preserved during the
dissection.
As the dissection is carried into the pelvis the
surgeon must also be cognizant of the presacral
venous plexus (PVP), which may be encountered
if the dissection proceeds more medially. Failure
to recognize that the dissection is encroaching on
the PVP may result in difcult to control bleeding and can result in serious hemorrhage. Keeping
the pelvic vascular dissection lateral and along
the iliac artery and veins is the safest way to
avoid bleeding from the PVP.When the resection
requires more posterior dissection, bleeding from
the PVP can be minimized by keeping the dissection anterior to the presacral fascia. In addition it
is important to maintain awareness that the risk
of inadvertent injury to the PVP is highest at the
distal sacrum where Waldeyer’s facia thickens
and may become fused with the presacral fascia,
especially if radiation has been previously delivered to this area [23].
In a patient with extensive vascular abutment
or encasement who is otherwise an appropriate
surgical candidate, the surgeon should anticipate
that vascular reconstruction will be required.
Attempts at resection without a plan for reconstruction should not be attempted as there is risk
for life threatening bleeding. In these situations,
the need for a multidisciplinary surgical team
including the vascular surgeon is at a premium as
there is growing data to support extended vascular resection as a single or two stage procedure.
In highly selected patients with tumor involving
the CIA or EIA, there are data to support pelvic
exenteration with extended resection, including
vascular resection and reconstruction [22, 24]. In
instances where vascular reconstruction is
required, it is recommended that this be performed during the initial stages of the operation
to reestablish distal ow as soon as possible.
Vascular reconstruction options include anatomical reconstruction with in-line interposition grafting of a resected segment or, in settings where
in-line reconstruction is not feasible, extraanatomical reconstruction with crossover
femoral- to-femoral bypass grafting. The choice
of conduit is driven by the degree of contamination expected or experienced, and the potential
size mismatch. Our practice is to use either a
cadaveric femoral vein graft or the contralateral
greater saphenous vein as our vascular conduit as
this minimizes risk of infectious or thrombotic
complications [25]. As extended lateral pelvic
resections become more commonly performed
for gynecologic and colorectal malignancies
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
