Search

Background: Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a complex operative procedure, reserved for patients with locally advanced and recurrent pelvic malignancies. PE is associated with a high index of post-operative morbidity. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programmes have been successful in improving postoperative outcomes, however, its application in PE has not been studied. The aim of our study is to assess the feasibility and short-term impact of ERAS on PE., Methods: A dedicated PE ERAS programme was developed reflecting the complexity of differing subtypes of PE. A prospective cohort study was undertaken to evaluate the feasibility of implementing our PE ERAS between 2016 and 2020. The primary endpoint of this study was overall compliance with the ERAS programme., Results: 145 patients were enrolled into our PE ERAS programme, with 86 (56.2%) patients undergoing a soft tissue PE, 27 (17.6%) a vascular PE and 32 (20.9%) a bony PE. The median overall compliance to the PE ERAS programme was 70% (IQR 55.5-88.8). There were no observed differences between overall compliance to the PE ERAS programme between different subtypes of PE (p = 0.60). Patients with higher compliance with the PE ERAS programme had a shorter LoS (p < 0.001), less post-operative morbidity (p < 0.001), reduced severity of Clavien-Dindo grade of morbidity (p < 0.001) and fewer readmissions (p = 0.03)., Conclusions: The principles of ERAS can be readily applied to patients undergoing PE, with high adherence to the ERAS programme associated with improved clinical outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Sphincter-saving resection (SSR) for low rectal cancer remains challenging due to the high risk of positive resection margin (R1). Long-term outcomes and the dedicated oncological strategy are not well established in this situation. The aim of this study was to define the more appropriate strategy according to the patterns of recurrence., Methods: Between 1994 and 2014, patients treated by SSR for low rectal cancer with preoperative chemoradiotherapy were included. Three types of recurrences were defined: local (LR), distant (DR) and mixed (MR). Recurrences and survival after R0 and R1 resection were analysed by Kaplan-Meier and compared with the log-rang test., Results: Among 394 patients receiving SSR, 42 (10.6%) had R1 resection. Independent factors of R1 resection were EMVI (OR2.24,95%IC1.10-4.53,p = 0.025) and no tumor downstaging (OR8.41,95%IC2.50-8.32,p = 0.001). Both 5-year disease free and overall survival, and 5-year distant and local recurrence, were significantly worse after R1 resection. The overall recurrence after R1 resection was 57% (24/42), 7% had LR, 36% DR and 14% MR. Time to DR was shorter than time to LR (11.1 vs. 34.3) months. In all cases of MR, DR occurred before LR (12.1 vs. 34.3) months, meaning that after R1 resection, the first concern was DR., Conclusion: R1 resection after SSR for low rectal cancer reflects a more aggressive and systemic disease. Prognosis depends on DR in about 90% of cases, suggesting that pelvic control should not be the priority in the oncological strategy after R1. Adjuvant systemic chemotherapy ought to be preferred to salvage abdominoperineal resection., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)