ArticleTurkish journal of urology2019
Routine prophylactic ureteral stenting before cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: Safety and usefulness from a single-center experience.
Article in Turkish journal of urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single center experience with salvage surgery for chronic pelvic sepsis.Updates in surgery · 2022Article
- Association of intraoperative gross hematuria with acute kidney injury after cytoreductive surgery.Pleura and peritoneum · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThere are very few evidences about safety and usefulness of routine prophylactic ureteral stenting (PUS) before cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). MATERIAL AND
methodsAn analysis of prospectively collected data about patients who underwent CRS and HIPEC for different sites of primary disease was carried out focusing on ureteral complications.
resultsA total of 138 patients who underwent CRS and HIPEC between December 2010 and June 2017 were considered. All patients underwent PUS before CRS and HIPEC. Of them, 91 (66.4%) patients received pelvic peritonectomy, 49 (35.8%) pelvic lymphadenectomy, 31 (22.6%) left hemicolectomy, 44 (32.4%) right hemicolectomy, 46 (33.6%) rectal resection, 56 (40.9%) hysteroannessiectomy, and 39 (28.5%) appendectomy. There was one (0.7%) postoperative ureteral fistula. The cumulative risk of ureteral stent-related major complications was 4.3% (two patients (1.4%) had protracted gross hematuria, two patients (1.4%) had urinary sepsis, and three patients (2.9%) developed hydronephrosis after a period from removing ureteral stents and required restenting. Morbidity due to ureteral stenting was associated with a longer length of stay (LOS) (p=0.053). A total of 52 patients (44.1%) developed renal dysfunction according to the RIFLE (Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss of kidney function, End-stage kidney-disease) criteria: 19.5% were in risk class, 10.2% in acute renal injury class, and 14.4% in acute renal failure class.
conclusionPUS could be a useful tool for reducing iatrogenic ureteral injury, but it is associated with a non-negligible morbidity, which implies longer LOS. A more accurate patient selection for PUS is necessary.
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.