ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2018
Transperineal retropubic approach in total pelvic exenteration for advanced and recurrent colorectal and anal cancer involving the penile base: technique and outcomes.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis on mortality rate following total pelvic exenteration in cancer patients.BMC cancer · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Efficacy of Applying Kanglaite Injection under Incentive Nursing Intervention in Treating Patients with Advanced Penile Carcinoma and Its Effect on Treatment Compliance.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2021Article
- Feasibility of laparoscopic-assisted transanal pelvic exenteration in locally advanced rectal cancer with anterior invasion.Techniques in coloproctology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComplete pathological resection of locally advanced and recurrent anorectal cancer is considered the most important determinant of survival outcome. Involvement of the retropubic space with cancer threatening or involving the penile base poses specific challenges due to the potential for margin involvement and blood loss from the dorsal venous plexus. In the present study we evaluate a new transperineal surgical approach to excision of anterior compartment organs involved or threatened by cancer which facilitates exposure and visualisation of the bulbar urethra and the deep vein of the penis caudal to the retropubic space and penile base.
methodsA retrospective study was performed on male patients with tumour extension into the penile base treated at our institution using the transperineal surgical approach. Descriptive data for patient demographics, radiology, operative details, postoperative histology, complications and outcomes were collated.
resultsTen male patients with tumour extension into the penile base were identified. Two patients had recurrent anal cancer, 6 had locally advanced primary rectal cancer and 2 had recurrent rectal cancer. All patients had exenterative surgery with excision of the penile base utilising the transperineal approach. All patients had R0 resection. No local recurrence developed after a median follow up period of 15 months.
conclusionsThe transperineal approach to the penile base and retropubic space allows for high rates of R0 resection margin status with direct visualisation of the dorsal venous plexus, thereby minimising blood loss. In our experience, this technique is the preferred approach to excision of cancers threatening and involving the penile base and also for most male patients requiring total pelvic exenteration.
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.