SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2018
Minimally invasive surgery techniques in pelvic exenteration: a systematic and meta-analysis review.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Short- and long-term outcomes of minimally invasive vs. open pelvic exenteration in rectal tumours: a focused meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic Pelvic Exenteration for Gynecologic Malignancies, Anatomic Landmarks, and Surgical Steps: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Robotic multivisceral pelvic resection: experience from an exenteration unit.Techniques in coloproctology · 2020Pooled it
- Morbidity, Recurrence and Survival Following Pelvic Exenteration for Gynaecological Malignancies: A Retrospective, Single-Centre Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Current surgical treatment strategies and ongoing issues for locally recurrent rectal cancer.Japanese journal of clinical oncology · 2025Review
- Review
- Review
- Review
- Advances in beyond total mesorectal excision surgery: Behind the scenes.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- Open versus robotic-assisted techniques for multivisceral pelvic resections of locally advanced or recurrent colorectal and anal cancers: short-term outcomes from a single centre.Techniques in coloproctology · 2024Observational
- Pelvic Exenteration in Advanced, Recurrent or Synchronous Cancers-Last Resort or Therapeutic Option?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Minimally invasive pelvic exenteration for primary or recurrent locally advanced rectal cancer: A glimpse into the future.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- Robotic beyond total mesorectal excision for locally advanced rectal cancers: Perioperative and oncological outcomes from a multicentre case series.European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology · 2024Article
- The empty pelvis syndrome: a core data set from the PelvEx collaborative.The British journal of surgery · 2024Article
- Robotic or laparoscopic pelvic exenteration for gynecological malignancies: feasible options to open surgery.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2024Article
- Review
- Current status of robot-assisted total pelvic exenteration focusing on the field of urology: a clinical practice review.Translational cancer research · 2024Review
- Survival as a clinical outcome and its spiritual significance in a cohort of patients with advanced central pelvic neoplastic disease undergoing total pelvic evisceration: a poorly debated issue.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Minimally invasive surgery for maximally invasive tumors: pelvic exenterations for rectal cancers.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2022Article
- Contemporary Management of Locally Advanced and Recurrent Rectal Cancer: Views from the PelvEx Collaborative.Cancers · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPelvic exenteration is potentially curative for locally advanced and recurrent pelvic cancers. Evolving technology has facilitated the use of minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques in selected cases. We aimed to compare outcomes between open and MIS pelvic exenteration.
methodsA review of comparative studies was performed. Firstly, we evaluated the differences in surgical techniques with respect to operative time, blood loss, and margin status. Secondly, we assessed differences in 30-day morbidity and mortality rates, and length of hospital stay.
resultsFour studies that directly compared open and MIS exenteration were included. Analysis was performed on 170 patients; 78.1% (n = 133) had open pelvic exenteration, while 21.8% (n = 37) had a MIS exenteration. The median age for open exenteration was 57.7 years versus 63 years for MIS exenteration. Even though the operative time for MIS exenteration was 83 min longer (p < 0.001), it was associated with a median of 1,750mls less blood loss. The morbidity rate for MIS exenterative group was 56.7% (n = 21/37) versus 88.5% (n = 85/96) in the open exenteration group, with pooled analysis observing a 1.17 relative risk increase in 30-day morbidity (p = 0.172) in the open exenteration group. In addition, the MIS cohort had a 6-day shorter length of hospital stay (p = 0.04).
conclusionMIS exenteration can be performed in highly selective cases, where there is favourable patient anatomy and tumour characteristics. When feasible, it is associated with reduced intra-operative blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay, and reduced morbidity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30019221What 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.