ArticleAmerican journal of surgery2017
Water lavage as an adjunct to cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC).
Article in American journal of surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk factors of temperature increase after cytoreductive surgery combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Initial Experience of Cytoreductive Surgery (CRS) and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) in Baltic Country Center.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- A pilot trial of intravital microscopy in the study of the tumor vasculature of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Robotic-assisted cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC).Journal of robotic surgery · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWater lavage (WL) during gastrointestinal cancer surgery has osmotically mediated lytic effects on tumor cells. We investigated the safety and efficacy of WL with CRS-HIPEC.
methodsThis is a retrospective review, 1/2003-7/2014, of a single institution experience with CRS-HIPEC comparing patients who had WL (WL+) to those who did not (WL-).
resultsOf 157 CRS-HIPECs, 16 (10.2%) were WL+. WL+ had more PCI scores >20 compared to WL- (56.3% vs 19.4%, respectively, p = 0.003); however, the completeness of cytoreduction (CC) was similar. There were no differences in hospital length of stay or post-operative complications. The average POD 1 sodium (Na) level was statistically lower in the WL+ group (133.6 ± 2.5 vs 135.5 ± 3.2 mEq/L, p = 0.023); however, the average Na at discharge for each group was 140 mEq/L. There were no differences in 3-year OS (3WL+:0.63 vs WL-:0.68, p = 0.97) or RFS (WL+:0.32 vs WL-:0.39, p = 0.47). A subset analysis for patients with PCI >20 showed no difference between groups.
conclusionsWL offers a low cost, safe and theoretically efficacious method of tumor cell lysis for peritoneal malignancy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.