ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2019
Percutaneous drainage and management of fluid collections associated with necrotic or cystic tumors in the abdomen and pelvis.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dispelling the Myths of Percutaneous Catheter Drainage of Infected Abdominal Collections.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2024Review
- Transrectal and transvaginal catheter drainages and aspirations for management of pelvic fluid collections: technique, technical success rates, and outcomes in 150 patients.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2019Article
- EUS-guided drainage of a pelvic abscess.VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 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
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of percutaneous drainage for palliation of symptoms and sepsis in patients with cystic or necrotic tumors in the abdomen and pelvis. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis is a single center retrospective study of 36 patients (18 men, mean age = 51.1 years) who underwent percutaneous drainage for management of cystic or necrotic tumors in the non-postoperative setting over an 11-year period. Nineteen patients with intraabdominal fluid collections associated with primary malignancies included: cervical (n = 7), colorectal (n = 3), urothelial (n = 3), and others (n = 6). The 17 patients with fluid collections associated with intraabdominal metastases stemmed from the following primary malignancies: oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (n = 3), colorectal (n = 3), ovarian (n = 2), lung (n = 2), melanoma (n = 2) along with others (n = 5). Indications for percutaneous drainage were as follows: pain (36/36; 100%); fever and/or leukocytosis (34/36; 94%), and mass effect (21/36; 58%). Seven patients underwent additional sclerosis with absolute alcohol. Criteria for drainage success were temporary or definitive relief of symptoms and sepsis control.
resultsSuccessful sepsis control was achieved in all patients with sepsis (34/34; 100%) and 30/36 (83%) patients had improvement in pain. Duration of catheterization ranged from 2 to 90 days (mean = 22 days). There were four cases of fluid re-accumulation and one patient developed catheter tract seeding. Alcohol ablation was successful in two patients (2/7; 29%). Nearly all patients (34/36; 94%) died during the follow-up period.
conclusionsPercutaneous drainage was effective for palliative treatment of symptomatic cystic and necrotic tumors in the majority of patients in this series.
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.