Home›The Treatise›Chapters›Chapter 89
Tratado de Cirurgia da Coluna Vertebral
SECTION 8 • 8
Chapter89

Sacrectomy

Vancouver: Simões CE, Pereira OVA📖 Pages: 1079-1088
Full reading of this chapter is available exclusively in the printed edition of the Treatise.
Sec. 88
Cap. 89Clinical Chapter
2authors
Português
Español
English
Referênciasscientific citations
📑

Chapter Summary

• Context: Sacrectomy is indicated primarily for primary sacral neoplasms (such as chordomas and sarcomas) and locally advanced or recurrent pelvic carcinomas (e.g., colorectal cancer). The central therapeutic goal is obtaining wide, clear surgical margins (R0 resection). Cortical bone invasion and high sacral involvement (S1/S2) are no longer absolute contraindications in the contemporary setting provided that an R0 margin is achievable and the patient presents adequate clinical status. Absolute contraindications encompass unresectable disease due to insurmountable neurovascular involvement, prohibitive clinical comorbidities for major surgery, distant metastases without survival or quality-of-life benefit, and informed patient refusal.
• Chapter Objective: This chapter provides comprehensive guidance on oncological sacrectomy, detailing indications, surgical planning, combined anteroposterior approaches, spinopelvic reconstruction strategies, functional outcomes, and complication management.
• Overview and FundamentalsConcepts and Indications Sacrectomy is primarily aimed at treating primary sacral neoplasms (such as chordoma and sarcoma) and locally advanced or recurrent pelvic carcinomas (e.g., colorectal cancer). The central therapeutic goal is obtaining clear margins (R0 resection). Cortical bone invasion and high sacral involvement (S1/S2) are no longer absolute contraindications in the contemporary setting if R0 margins are feasible and the patient has adequate clinical conditions. Absolute contraindications include unresectable disease due to insurmountable extensive neurovascular involvement, medical comorbidities prohibiting major surgery, distant metastasis without impact on survival or quality of life, and informed patient refusal. Planning and Approaches Approach selection depends on tumor height and need for visceral resection: Low resection (below S2 neural foramina): Can be performed via an isolated posterior approach, providing adequate margins for lesions up to the vestigial S2-S3 disc. High or total resection (above S1-S2): A combined two-stage anteroposterior approach is indicated. The anterior stage (midline laparotomy) allows visceral mobilization, internal iliac vessel ligation, and unicortical osteotomies for dural protection. The posterior stage is frequently performed after 48 hours. Surgical Technique and Spinopelvic Reconstruction The anterior approach involves isolating the femoral nerve and preparing a myocutaneous flap (e.g., vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous - VRAM flap). The posterior approach (midline or "Mercedes" incision) requires sectioning piriformis and coccygeus muscles, sacrotuberous and sacrospinous ligaments, laminectomy, and double silk suture ligation of the dural sac in case of transection. When spinopelvic continuity is disrupted (resections at S1-S2 or above), instrumented reconstruction is mandatory. Fixation uses pedicle screws at the 3 to 4 most caudal lumbar levels combined with bilateral long iliac or S2-alar-iliac (S2AI) screws, reinforced by allografts or vascularized bone grafts. Correcting lumbosacral flexion positioning induced by the surgical table before final locking is fundamental to prevent iatrogenic kyphosis. Outcomes and Complications R0 resection is the strongest predictor of survival. In colorectal cancer, 5-year overall survival post-R0 is ~42%. In primary bone tumors, median survival reaches 70 months. Functionally, most patients (>80%) preserve independent ambulation, though assistive device dependence increases in high resections. Bladder dysfunction occurs in 8-23%, bowel dysfunction in 4-22%, and sexual dysfunction in up to 67%. Wound complications (dehiscence and infection) occur in up to 29% of cases. Perioperative mortality is approximately 1.1%. Technological Innovations Recent advances include 3D-printed patient-specific custom sacral implants based on finite element analysis, robotic surgery, intraoperative navigation, patient-specific cutting guides, and augmented reality, optimizing margin accuracy and structural stability.
• Clinical Application: Decision-making requires balancing the pursuit of R0 margins against functional sequelae resulting from nerve root sacrifice. The surgeon must align expectations with the patient regarding inevitable risks of bladder, bowel, sexual, and gait dysfunctions. During the procedure, meticulous hemostasis, correct spinopelvic alignment on the operating table to avoid iatrogenic kyphosis, and filling dead space with well-vascularized muscle flaps (VRAM or gluteus maximus) constitute critical steps to prevent mechanical failures, CSF leaks, dehiscence, and deep surgical site infections.
🏷️

Keywords

Preferred DeCS/MeSH Descriptors:
SacrumSpinal NeoplasmsChordomaSurgical Procedures, OperativeSpinal FusionPelvic Neoplasms
⭐

Why this chapter matters

Sacrectomy represents one of the most extensive and technically challenging procedures in orthopedic oncology and spine surgery. Mastering the anatomical nuances of anterior and posterior approaches, internal iliac vascular control, radical en bloc resection, and spinopelvic stabilization allows the surgical team to achieve curative oncologic margins while mitigating catastrophic vascular, neurological, and wound complications.

“Sacrectomy is an oncologically effective procedure that offers the possibility of cure or long-term disease control in primary sacral tumors and advanced pelvic carcinomas. Achieving negative margins (R0) is the main determinant of survival. In high or total sacrectomies, rigid instrumented spinopelvic reconstruction and dead space obliteration with vascularized muscle flaps are fundamental to restore mechanical stability and prevent severe wound complications.”
✨

Chapter Highlights

🌐
Card 1 — Essential Concept
Resection Level and Surgical Approaches

Sacral resections below the S2 neural foramina can be performed exclusively via a posterior approach. Conversely, high subtotal or total sacrectomies involving S1-S2 require a staged combined anteroposterior approach to ensure vascular control, visceral mobilization, and adequate R0 oncologic margins.

🩺
Card 2 — Clinical Decision
Indications and Surgical Limits

Sacrectomy aims for complete R0 resection in primary tumors or pelvic invasions. Cortical bone invasion and high sacrectomy are not absolute contraindications. However, unresectable disease with insurmountable vascular invasion, prohibitive comorbidities, or distant metastases without quality-of-life benefit contraindicate the procedure.

📐
Card 3 — Pearl or Alert
Spinopelvic Alignment and Reconstruction

In spinopelvic reconstruction following high sacrectomy, rigid fixation using lumbar pedicle screws and iliac or S2AI screws is indispensable. Prior to final locking, lumbosacral flexion induced by table positioning must be rigorously corrected to prevent iatrogenic kyphotic deformity.

📑

How to Cite this Chapter (Vancouver Format)

Official bibliographic indexing and citation guidelines
📖 Pages: 1079-1088Vancouver Style
Authors (Vancouver):Simões CE, Pereira OVA

Simões CE, Pereira OVA. Sacrectomia. In: Pudles E, Defino H, Risso M, editors. Tratado de Cirurgia da Coluna Vertebral (Treatise of Spine Surgery). 1st ed. Rio de Janeiro: Dilivros Editora; 2026. p. 1079-1088.

ISBN: 978-85-8053-292-0 • 1.ª Edição • Dilivros Editora
📚

Bibliographic References

1. Stener B, Gunterberg B. High Amputation of the Sacrum For Extirpation of Tumors. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1978; 3(4):351-66.
2. Gokaslan ZL, Romsdahl MM, Kroll SS, Walsh GL, Gillis TA, Wildrick DM, et al. Total sacrectomy and Galveston L-rod reconstruction for malignant neoplasms. J Neurosurg. 1997; 87(5):781-7.
3. Fourney DR, Rhines LD, Hentschel SJ, Skibber JM, Wolinsky JP, Weber KL, et al. En bloc resection of primary sacral tumors: classification of surgical approaches and outcome. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005; 3(2):111-22.
4. Weidlich A, Schaser KD, Weitz J, Kirchberg J, Fritzmann J, Reeps C, et al. Surgical and Oncologic Outcome following Sacrectomy for Primary Malignant Bone Tumors and Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer. Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(13):2334.
5. Pu F, Zhang Z, Wang B, Wu Q, Liu J, Shao Z. Total sacrectomy with a combined antero-posterior surgical approach for malignant sacral tumours. Int Orthop. 2021; 45(5):1347-54.
6. van Kessel CS, Waller J, Steffens D, Lee PJ, Austin KKS, Stalley PD, et al. Improving Surgical Outcomes in Pelvic Exenteration Surgery. Ann Surg. 2023; 278(6):945-53.
7. Jearanai S, Malakorn S. Unfolding the Art of Methodical Approach for Total Sacrectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2024; 31(6):3957-8.
8. Kaiser R, Gasbarrini A, Pasini S, Khadanovich A, Mawhinney G, Giele H, et al. New options and techniques in reconstructing the sacrum. European Spine Journal. 2025.
9. Pieters TA, Hersh AM, Elsamadicy AA, Pennington Z, Santangelo G, Najjar S, et al. Outcomes after en bloc resection with sacrectomy of advanced colorectal carcinomas that invade the sacrum: a multiinstitutional descriptive series. J Neurosurg Spine. 2025; 42(5):598-604.
10. Guo W, Tang X, Zang J, Ji T. One-Stage Total En Bloc Sacrectomy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38(10):E626-31.
11. Lau YC, Jongerius K, Wakeman C, Heriot AG, Solomon MJ, Sagar PM, et al. Influence of the level of sacrectomy on survival in patients with locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer. British Journal of Surgery. 2019; 106(4):484-90.
12. Milne T, Solomon MJ, Lee P, Young JM, Stalley P, Harrison JD, et al. Sacral Resection With Pelvic Exenteration for Advanced Primary and Recurrent Pelvic Cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57(10):1153-61.
13. Bhangu A, Brown G, Akmal M, Tekkis P. Outcome of abdominosacral resection for locally advanced primary and recurrent rectal cancer. British Journal of Surgery. 2012; 99(10):1453-61.
14. Kido A, Koizumi M, Honoki K, Tanaka Y, Koyama F, Nakajima Y, et al. Extent and contraindications for sacral amputation in patients with recurrent rectal cancer: a systematic literature review. Journal of Orthopaedic Science. 2011; 16(3):286-90.
15. Takiguchi N, Uemura M, Kitakaze M, Paku M, Takeda M, Sekido Y, et al. High Level Sacral Bone Resection for Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer. Anticancer Res. 2023; 43(11):5061-6.
16. Braeckman N, Kerckhove E, Denys A, Sys G, van Ramshorst GH. Oncological and functional outcomes after sacrectomy for colorectal cancer: A systematic review. Colorectal Disease. 2025; 27(4).
17. Sasikumar A, Bhan C, Jenkins JT, Antoniou A, Murphy J. Systematic Review of Pelvic Exenteration With En Bloc Sacrectomy for Recurrent Rectal Adenocarcinoma: RO Resection Predicts Disease-free Survival. Dis Colon Rectum. 2017; 60(3):346-52.
18. Milne T, Solomon MJ, Lee P, Young JM, Stalley P, Harrison JD. Assessing the Impact of a Sacral Resection on Morbidity and Survival After Extended Radical Surgery for Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer. Ann Surg. 2013; 258(6):1007-13.
19. Coan JM, Gasho JO, Connolly JJ, Lozano-Calderon SA, Raskin KA, Schwab JH, et al. Long-Term Bladder, Bowel, and Ambulatory Function After Sacrectomy Surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2025.
20. Kiatisevi P, Piyaskulkaew C, Kunakornsawat S, Sukunthanak B. What Are the Functional Outcomes After Total Sacrectomy Without Spinopelvic Reconstruction? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017; 475(3):643-55.
21. Phukan R, Herzog T, Boland PJ, Healey J, Rose P, Sim FH, et al. How Does the Level of Sacral Resection for Primary Malignant Bone Tumors Affect Physical and Mental Health, Pain, Mobility, Incontinence, and Sexual Function? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016; 474(3):687-96.
22. Li D, Guo W, Qu H, Yang R, Tang X, Yan T, et al. Experience with wound complications after surgery for sacral tumors. European Spine Journal. 2013; 22(9):2069-76.
23. Schwab JH, Healey JH, Rose P, Casas-Ganem J, Boland PJ. The Surgical Management of Sacral Chordomas. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34(24):2700-4.
24. Verlaan JJ, Kuperus JS, Slooff WB, Hennipman A, Oner FC. Complications, secondary interventions and long term morbidity after en bloc sacrectomy. European Spine Journal. 2015; 24(10):2209-19.
25. Lv Z, Li J, Yang Z, Li X, Yang Q, Li Z. A novel three dimensional-printed biomechanically evaluated patient-specific sacral implant in spinopelvic reconstruction after total en bloc sacrectomy. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2023; 11.
26. Phelps BM, Ramey WL, Hurlbert RJ. Sacral/Pelvic Fixation. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2025; 36(1):41-51.
27. Mottaran A, Bravi CA, Sarchi L, Paciotti M, Nocera L, Piro A, et al. Robot-Assisted Sacropexy with the Novel HUGO Robot-Assisted Surgery System: Initial Experience and Surgical Setup at a Tertiary Referral Robotic Center. J Endourol. 2023; 37(1):35-41.
28. Siegel MA, Balach T, Sweeney KR, Nystrom LM, Colman MW. Sacroiliac joint cut accuracy: Comparing new technologies in an idealized sawbones model. J Surg Oncol. 2020; 122(6):1218-25.
Episode 06 – Early-Onset Scoliosis
Scheduled Premiere
Exclusive Premiere • Wednesday, October 07 at 9:00 PM (BRT)
Wednesday, October 07 at 9:00 PM (BRT)
The live countdown will be activated on the eve of the premiere.

The full videocast will premiere automatically in this player on Wednesday, 10/07 at 6:00 PM (BRT).

Also premiering on Spotify
Treatise in Debate

Official videocast derived from the treatise chapters.

Episode 06 – Early-Onset Scoliosis

Lungs and the Growing Spine: thoracic development, C-EOS classification, and growth-friendly surgical techniques