Initial experience of laparoscopic pelvic exenteration and comparison with conventional open surgery

Generalization of laparoscopic pelvic surgery has brought about profound knowledge of the pelvic anatomy and has encouraged expansion of indications for laparoscopic surgery to extended pelvic surgery. Pelvic exenteration (PE) is still a demanding surgical procedure and remains an essential technique for pelvic surgery although minimally invasive and function-preserving surgery is in the mainstream of surgical treatment. However, the techniques of laparoscopic PE (LPE) have been rarely explained nor has its feasibility been fully evaluated. The aim of this study was to describe important technical points and to assess the feasibility of LPE for pelvic malignancies.

Data on 67 patients with pelvic malignancies, who underwent PE between June 2006 and August 2014, were analyzed retrospectively. LPE has been indicated since 2013. Patients were divided into the LPE group (n = 9) and the conventional open PE (OPE) group (n = 58).

Operative time in the LPE and OPE groups was similar (935 vs. 883 min, p = 0.398). Intraoperative blood loss in the LPE group was significantly less than that in the OPE group (830 vs. 2769 ml, p = 0.003). Pathological R0 resection rate was similar in both groups (77.8 vs. 75.9%). Overall incidence of any complication and major complications were much lower in the LPE group (66.7 and 0%) compared to the OPE group (89.7 and 32.8%), although not statistically significant (p = 0.094 and 0.053, respectively). Postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LPE group than in the OPE group (27 vs. 43 days, p = 0.003).

We confirmed that LPE for pelvic malignancies resulted in less blood loss, a lower complication rate, and shorter postoperative hospital stay compared to OPE. LPE performed by an experienced pelvic surgeon was safe and efficient, and might be a promising option for carefully selected patients.