ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020
Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) might increase the risk of anastomotic leakage compared to HIPEC: an experimental study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): updated systematic review using the IDEAL framework.The British journal of surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Management of peritoneal surface metastases from colorectal cancer: Cytoreductive surgery, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, pressurized intraperitoneal chemotherapy, and beyond.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- PIPAC for Gastrointestinal Malignancies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Contemporary Management of Locally Advanced and Recurrent Rectal Cancer: Views from the PelvEx Collaborative.Cancers · 2022Review
- Preclinical In Vivo-Models to Investigate HIPEC; Current Methodologies and Challenges.Cancers · 2021Review
- Recent Advances in Intra-peritoneal Chemotherapy for Gastric Cancer.Journal of gastric cancer · 2020Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) are technics proposed to treat patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis, in different settings. There is some concern about an over-risk of anastomotic leakage (AL) with PIPAC jeopardizing a combination with cytoreductive surgery. This study used a healthy swine model to compare the postoperative AL rate between PIPAC and HIPEC with digestive resection and to analyze macrocirculation and microcirculation parameters.
methodsSegmental colonic resection with a handsewn anastomosis was performed on 16 healthy pigs; 8 pigs had a PIPAC procedure with 7.5 mg/m
resultsThe HIPEC group had no AL, but 3 of 8 pigs (37.5%) had AL in the PIPAC group (p = 0.20). Heart rate and core temperature showed perioperative increases in the HIPEC group. Intraoperatively, heart rate was higher in the HIPEC group at the two last timepoints (123 vs. 93 bpm, p = 0.031, and 110 vs. 85 bpm, p = 0.010, at timepoints 3 and 4, respectively). Other macrocirculatory and microcirculatory parameters showed no significant differences.
conclusionIn this healthy swine model, PIPAC might have increased AL incidence compared to HIPEC. This potential over-risk did not seem to be related to changes in the microcirculation. PIPAC should probably not be used with digestive resection and should be avoided in cases of perioperative serosal injury.
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.