title: Laparoscopic pelvic exenteration for gynaecological malignancy: is there any advantage?
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Pelvic exenteration (PE) remains one of the most mutilating surgical procedures with important postoperative morbidity. Laparoscopic approach has emerged in an attempt to reduce postoperative complications. The aim of the present study was to compare outcomes between laparoscopic pelvic exenteration combined with a vaginal or perineal approach, versus classical approach.
  
  
  METHODS
  A cohort study was performed by identifying patients who underwent laparoscopic pelvic exenteration, and retrospectively comparing data with open cases from the same period of time, from 2000 to 2008.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Fourteen patients underwent laparoscopic PE and 29 patients underwent an open exenterative procedure. All patients except one (97.6%) had received prior radiotherapy. Eighteen patients (41.9%) underwent total PE, 17 anterior PE (39.5%), and 8 posterior PE (18.6%). Urinary diversion (UD) technique consisted of 24 Miami pouch (68.6%), 9 Bricker diversion (25.7%), 1 Kock pouch (2.9%), and 1 ureterostomy (2.9%). Most frequent postoperative complications were related to the urinary diversion (45%) and bowel reconstruction (27.9%). Median estimated blood loss for the laparoscopy and laparotomy group was 400 ml (range 200-700 ml) and 875 ml (range 200-1600 ml), respectively. Transfusion rate was also significantly higher in the laparotomy group. Operative time, margin status, length of hospital stay, operative and postoperative morbidity, and disease and overall survival were not significantly different between both groups.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Laparoscopic PE is feasible with curative intent to selected patients. Potential postoperative advantages of laparoscopic approach when compared to classical approach, oncological safety of the procedure, and QOL considerations need to be further investigated.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgical Oncology, Claudius Regaud Comprehensive Cancer Center, Toulouse, France.
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Martínez
authors.forename: T
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Filleron
authors.forename: L
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Vitse
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Querleu
authors.forename: E
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Mery
authors.forename: G
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Balague
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Delannes
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Soulie
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Pomel
authors.forename: G
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Ferron
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D015331:Cohort Studies; D005260:Female; D005833:Genital Neoplasms, Female / Q000601:surgery*; D006801:Humans; D010535:Laparoscopy / Q000379:methods*; D008875:Middle Aged; D010385:Pelvic Exenteration / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000209:etiology; D014547:Urinary Diversion / Q000009:adverse effects