Total sacrectomy for recurrent rectal cancer - A case report featuring technical details and potential pitfalls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Total sacrectomy for recurrent rectal cancer is controversial. However, recent publications suggest encouraging outcomes with high sacral resections. We present the first case report describing technical aspects, potential pitfalls and treatment of complications associated with total sacrectomy performed as a treatment of recurrent rectal cancer. PRESENTATION OF CASE: A fifty-three year old man was previously treated at another institution with a low anterior resection (LAR) followed by chemo-radiation and left liver tri-segmentectomy for metastatic rectal cancer. Three years following the LAR, the patient developed a recurrence at the site of colorectal anastomosis, manifesting clinically as a contained perforation, forming a recto-cutaneous fistula through the sacrum. Abdomino-perineal resection (APR) and complete sacrectomy were performed using an anterior-posterior approach with posterior spinal instrumented fusion and pelvic fixation using iliac crest bone graft. Left sided vertical rectus abdominis muscle flap and right sided gracilis muscle flap were used for hardware coverage and to fill the pelvic defect. One year after the resection, the patient remains disease free and has regained the ability to move his lower limbs against gravity. DISCUSSION: The case described in this report features some formidable challenges due to the previous surgeries for metastatic disease, and the presence of a recto-sacral cutaneous fistula. An approach with careful surgical planning including considerationof peri-operative embolization is vital for a successful outcome of the operation. A high degree of suspicion for pseudo-aneurysms formation due infection or dislodgement of metallic coils is necessary in the postoperative phase. CONCLUSION: Total sacrectomy for the treatment of recurrent rectal cancer with acceptable short-term outcomes is possible.A detailed explanation to the patient of the possible complications and expectations including the concept of a very high chancefor recurrence is paramount prior to proceeding with such a surgery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".