Purpose: The practice of exenterative surgery is sometimes controversial and has garnered a certain scepticism. Surgical studies are difficult to conduct due to insufficient data. The aim of this review is to present the current standing of pelvic exenteration from a surgical, gynaecological and urological point of view. Methods: This review is based upon a literature review (MEDLINE (PubMed), CENTRAL (Cochrane) and EMBASE (Elsevier)) of retrospective studies on exenterative surgery from 1993–2020. Using MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) search terms, 1572 publications were found. These were evaluated and screened with respect to their eligibility using algorithms and well-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Therefore, the guidelines for systematic reviews (PRISMA) were used. Results: A complete tumour resection (R0) often represents the only curative option for advanced pelvic carcinomas and their recurrences. A recent systematic review showed significant symptom relief in 80% of palliative patients after pelvic exenteration. Surgical limitations (distant metastases, involvement of the pelvic wall, etc.) are diminished by adequate surgical expertise and close interdisciplinary cooperation. While the mortality rate is low (2–5%), the still relatively high morbidity rate (32–84%) can be minimized by optimizing the perioperative setting. Following exenterations, roughly 79–82% of patients report satisfying results according to PROs (patient-reported outcomes). Conclusion: Due to multimodality treatment strategies combined with extended surgical expertise and patients’ preferences, pelvic exenteration can be offered nowadays with low mortality and acceptable postoperative quality of life. The possibilities of surgical treatment are often underestimated. A multi-centre database (PelvEx Collaborative) was established to collect data and experiences to optimize the research in this field.

Background: Pelvic exenteration (PE) is the only option for long-term cure of advanced cancer originating from different types of tumor or recurrent disease in the lower pelvis. The aim was to show differences between colorectal and non-colorectal cancer in survival and postoperative morbidity.Methods: Retrospective data of 63 patients treated with total pelvic exenteration between 2013 and 2018 are reported. Pre-, intra-, and postoperative parameters, survival data, and risk factors for complications were analyzed.Results: A total of 57.2% (n= 37) of the patients had colorectal cancer, 22.3% had gynecological malignancies (vulvar (n= 6) or cervical (n= 8) cancer), 11.1% (n= 7) had anal cancer, and 9.5% had other primary tumors. A total of 30.2% (n= 19) underwent PE for a primary tumor and 69.8% (n= 44) for recurrent cancer. The 30-day in-hospital mortality was 0%. Neoadjuvant treatment was administered to 65.1% (n= 41) of the patients and correlated significantly with postoperative complications (odds ratio 4.441; 95% CI: 1.375–14.342,P> 0.05). R0, R1, R2, and Rx resections were achieved in 65.1%, 19%, 1.6%, and 14.3% of the patients, respectively. In patients undergoing R0 resection, 2-year OS and RFS were 73.2% and 52.4%, respectively. Resection status was a significant risk factor for recurrence-free and overall survival (OS) in univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis revealed age (P= 0.021), ASA ≥ 3 (P= 0.005), high blood loss (P= 0.028), low preoperative hemoglobin level (P< 0.001), nodal positivity (P< 0.001), and surgical complications (P= 0.003) as independent risk factors for OS.Conclusion: Pelvic exenteration is a procedure with high morbidity rates but remains the only curative option for advanced or recurrent colorectal and non-colorectal cancer in the pelvis.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs are aimed at minimizing postoperative stress and accelerating postoperative recovery by implementing multiple perioperative principles. “Early mobilization” is one such principle, but the quality of assessment and monitoring is poor, and evidence of improved outcome is lacking. Activity trackers allow precise monitoring and automatic feedback to the patients to enhance their motivation for early mobilization. The aim of the study is to monitor and increase the postoperative mobilization of patients by giving them continuous automatic feedback in the form of a step count using activity-tracking wristbands. Patients undergoing elective open and laparoscopic surgery of the colon, rectum, stomach, pancreas, and liver for any indication will be included. Further inclusion criteria are age between 18 and 75 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status class less than IV, and a signed informed consent form. Patients will be stratified into two subgroups, laparoscopic and open surgery, and will be randomized 1:1 for automatic feedback of their step count using an activity tracker wristband. The control group will have no automatic feedback. The sample size (n = 30 patients in each of the four groups, overall n = 120) is calculated on the basis of an assumed difference in step count of 250 steps daily (intervention group versus control group). The primary study endpoint is the average step count during the first 5 postoperative days; secondary endpoints are the percentage of patients in the two groups who master the predefined mobilization (step count) targets, assessment of additional activity data obtained from the devices, assessment of preoperative mobility, length of hospital and intensive care unit stays, number of patients who receive physiotherapy, 30-day mortality, and overall 30-day morbidity. Early mobilization is a key element of ERAS. However, enhanced early mobilization is difficult to define, to assess objectively, and to implement in clinical practice. Consequently, there is a discrepancy between ERAS targets and actual practice, especially in patients undergoing major visceral surgery. This study is the first randomized controlled trial investigating the use and feasibility of activity tracking to monitor and enhance postoperative early mobilization. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02834338 . Registered on 15 June 2016.

Many patients with chronic pancreatitis (CP) undergo a step-up approach with interventional procedures as first-line treatment and resection reserved for later stages. The aim of this study was to identify predictive factors for a significant clinical improvement (SCI) after surgical treatment. All patients operated for CP between September 2012 and June 2017 at our center was retrospectively reviewed. A prospective patient survey was conducted to measure patients postoperative outcome. The primary endpoint SCI was defined as stable health status, positive weight development and complete pain relief without routine pain medication. Additionally, risk factors for relaparotomy were analyzed. A total of 89 patients with a median follow-up of 38 months were included. In most cases, a duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (n = 48) or pancreatoduodenectomy (n = 28) was performed. SCI was achieved in 65.3% (n = 47) of the patients after the final medium follow-up of 15.0 months (IQR: 7.0–35.0 months), respectively. Patients with a longer mean delay (7.7 vs 4 years) between diagnosis and surgical resection were less likely to achieve SCI (P = .02; OR .88; 95%CI .80–98). An endocrine insufficiency was a negative prognostic factor for SCI (P = .01; OR .15; 95%CI .04–68). In total, 96.2% of the patients had a complete or major postoperative relief with a mean pain intensity reduction from 8.1 to 1.9 on the visual analogue scale. The results support that surgical resection for CP should be considered at early stages. Resection can effectively reduce postoperative pain intensity and improve long-term success.

Purpose: Anastomotic leakage (AL) and surgical site infection (SSI) account for most postoperative complications in colorectal surgery. The aim of this retrospective trial was to investigate whether perioperative selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) reduces these complications and to provide a cost-effectiveness model for elective colorectal surgery. Methods: All patients operated between November 2016 and March 2020 were included in our analysis. Patients in the primary cohort (PC) received SDD and those in the historical control cohort (CC) did not receive SDD. In the case of rectal/sigmoid resection, SDD was also applied via a transanally placed Foley catheter (TAFC) for 48 h postoperatively. A propensity score-matched analysis was performed to identify risk factors for AL and SSI. Costs were calculated based on German diagnosis-related group (DRG) fees per case. Results: A total of 308 patients (154 per cohort) with a median age of 62.6 years (IQR 52.5–70.8) were analyzed. AL was observed in ten patients (6.5%) in the PC and 23 patients (14.9%) in the CC (OR 0.380, 95% CI 0.174–0.833; P = 0.016). SSI occurred in 14 patients (9.1%) in the PC and 30 patients in the CC (19.5%), representing a significant reduction in our SSI rate (P = 0.009). The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that SDD is highly effective in saving costs with a number needed to treat of 12 for AL and 10 for SSI. Conclusion: SDD significantly reduces the incidence of AL and SSI and saves costs for the general healthcare system.