Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Placental growth factor (PLGF)-based testing to help diagnose suspected pre-eclampsia: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)·2026
Same author

Evaluation of a supermarket placement strategy to nudge healthier dietary habits: synopsis of the WRAPPED study.

Public health research (Southampton, England)·2026
Same author

When intubation fails: Unmasking a rare airway emergency in neonatal intensive care unit.

Journal of neonatal-perinatal medicine·2026
Same author

Sustaining low-cost PM<sub>2.5</sub> monitoring networks in South-Asian Countries: technical challenges and solutions.

Environment international·2026
Same author

Early versus late surgical start times for on-pump cardiac surgery.

The Cochrane database of systematic reviews·2026
Same author

Roadside Trees as Bioindicators: Air Pollution Tolerance and Physiological Responses in Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Bulletin of environmental contamination and toxicology·2026
Same journal

Correction: Adeluola et al. Chemoprevention of 4-NQO-Induced Oral Cancer by the Combination of Resveratrol and EGCG: In Vivo, In Silico and In Vitro Studies. <i>Cancers</i> 2026, <i>18</i>, 1098.

Cancers·2026
Same journal

Correction: Peñalver et al. Guidelines for Diagnosis, Treatment, and Follow-Up of Patients with Follicular Lymphoma-Spanish Lymphoma Group (GELTAMO) 2026. <i>Cancers</i> 2026, <i>18</i>, 395.

Cancers·2026
Same journal

Correction: Accorsi Buttini et al. Development of a Simplified Geriatric Score-4 (SGS-4) to Predict Outcomes After Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Patients Aged over 50. <i>Cancers</i> 2025, <i>17</i>, 3278.

Cancers·2026
Same journal

Age-Stratified Long-Term Outcomes of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Stage IV Melanoma and NSCLC in The Netherlands: A Population-Based Study.

Cancers·2026
Same journal

Targeting Ferroptosis in Glioblastoma: Molecular Mechanisms, Tumor Microenvironment, and Therapeutic Opportunities.

Cancers·2026
Same journal

Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy-Based Treatment Versus Chemotherapy Alone in Resectable Locally Advanced dMMR/MSI-H Gastric Cancer: A Real-World Study with Meta-Analysis.

Cancers·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 3, 2025

Clinical Application of Single-Surgeon, Three-Port, Laparoscopic Resection for Colorectal Cancer with Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction
08:26

Clinical Application of Single-Surgeon, Three-Port, Laparoscopic Resection for Colorectal Cancer with Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction

Published on: March 24, 2023

338

A Prospective Observational Cohort Study Comparing High-Complexity Against Conventional Pelvic Exenteration Surgery.

Charles T West1,2, Abhinav Tiwari2, Yousif Salem1

  • 1Southampton Complex Cancer and Exenteration Team, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK.

Cancers
|January 11, 2025
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

High-complexity pelvic exenteration (PE) offers similar survival and quality of life to conventional PE for advanced cancers. While associated with increased morbidity and costs, it remains a cost-effective option compared to no surgery.

Keywords:
cancerhealth economicshigh-complexity pelvic exenterationmorbiditypelvic exenterationquality of lifesurgical oncology

More Related Videos

Author Spotlight: Advancing Pelvic Prolapse Treatment with a Non-Mesh Approach using Laparoscopic Pectopexy
03:30

Author Spotlight: Advancing Pelvic Prolapse Treatment with a Non-Mesh Approach using Laparoscopic Pectopexy

Published on: October 25, 2024

1.3K
Mixed Reality Assisted Radical Endoscopic Thyroidectomy
08:06

Mixed Reality Assisted Radical Endoscopic Thyroidectomy

Published on: January 31, 2025

219

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 3, 2025

Clinical Application of Single-Surgeon, Three-Port, Laparoscopic Resection for Colorectal Cancer with Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction
08:26

Clinical Application of Single-Surgeon, Three-Port, Laparoscopic Resection for Colorectal Cancer with Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction

Published on: March 24, 2023

338
Author Spotlight: Advancing Pelvic Prolapse Treatment with a Non-Mesh Approach using Laparoscopic Pectopexy
03:30

Author Spotlight: Advancing Pelvic Prolapse Treatment with a Non-Mesh Approach using Laparoscopic Pectopexy

Published on: October 25, 2024

1.3K
Mixed Reality Assisted Radical Endoscopic Thyroidectomy
08:06

Mixed Reality Assisted Radical Endoscopic Thyroidectomy

Published on: January 31, 2025

219

Area of Science:

  • Surgical Oncology
  • Pelvic Reconstruction
  • Cancer Treatment Outcomes

Background:

  • Conventional pelvic exenteration (PE) is a standard treatment for pelvic cancers.
  • Tumors involving bone or lateral sidewall structures were previously considered inoperable.
  • High-complexity PE extends conventional PE to include resection of bone or pelvic sidewall structures for advanced tumors.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To assess surgical outcomes, health-related quality of life (HrQoL), decision regret, and costs of high-complexity PE.
  • To compare high-complexity PE with conventional PE for advanced pelvic tumors.
  • To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of high-complexity PE against no surgery.

Main Methods:

  • Observational cohort study using prospectively maintained quaternary database.
  • Inclusion of 319 cases: 64 conventional PE and 255 high-complexity PE.
  • Primary outcome: overall survival. Secondary outcomes: perioperative mortality, disease control, major morbidity, HrQoL, health resource use, and cost-utility analysis.

Main Results:

  • Overall survival was equivalent between conventional and high-complexity PE (median 10.5 vs. 9.8 years).
  • Local control, 90-day mortality, R0-resection rates, 12-month HrQoL, and decision regret were comparable.
  • High-complexity PE significantly increased major morbidity (16% vs. 31%) and perioperative costs (GBP 37,271 vs. GBP 45,733).

Conclusions:

  • High-complexity PE is a safe and feasible surgical option for advanced pelvic tumors.
  • It provides comparable survival outcomes and HrQoL to conventional PE.
  • Despite increased morbidity and costs, high-complexity PE demonstrates cost-effectiveness compared to no surgery or palliation.