Добавил:
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
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
30.08.2026
Размер:
47 Мб
Скачать
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. Signicant 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 conguration 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 difculty 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 deciency 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 12months. Some suggest the baseline QoL is reached at 6months [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 12Months
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 proles 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 signicant 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, etal. Is hysterectomy ben­ecial 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, Grifths 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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 ofRecurrent Pelvic Sidewall Tumor
JamesD.McDonald andRicardoJ.Gonzalez
39

Introduction

Recurrent tumors of the pelvic sidewall are extremely difcult 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 [14]. 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@moftt.org
R. J. Gonzalez (*) Sarcoma Department, Moftt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA e-mail: Ricardo.Gonzalez@moftt.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 ofRecurrent 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 andComplications

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 identied 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 identied 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 andComplications

Background

Prevention

While there is conicting data on the routine use of prophylactic ureteral stents in gynecologic and colorectal surgery to prevent injury, they are ben­ecial to assist in early ureteral identication when performing preoperative surgery, especially in the setting of previous radiation and bulky tumors [1820]. 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 identied, 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 identied 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 identi­cation, and potentially identify injuries more readily.

Recognition

Intraoperatively, when ureteral stents are present, an injury is quickly and easily identied 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 conrmed by the administration of intravenous uorescein which will turn urine green. When operating in the vicinity of the ureter within a difcult operative eld, the surgeon must maintain a high level of vigilance. If a suspicious-looking tubular structure is transected or a lumen is identied in divided tissue, then further investigation to deter­mine ureteral patency is required. If further dis­section proves difcult or fruitless, then a
39 Resection ofRecurrent Pelvic Sidewall Tumor
443
cystoscopy should be performed to look for efux of urine from the ureteral orices. 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 25–450mg/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 identied. In general, if identied 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 difcult 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, denitive repair is delayed until at least 6weeks after the injury is stabilized.
Vascular Injury andComplications

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 signicant 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 difcult to control. Ligation of the IIV will not typically result in any decit. However, if ligation of both the EIV and IIV or the CIV is necessary due to tumor involvement, lower extremity edema may be signicant 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 difcult 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