ArticleTurkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation2020
Anaesthesia in a Toxic Environment: Pressurised Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy: A Retrospective Analysis.
Article in Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation, 2020. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Occupational Exposure Risk and Safety of Novel Intraperitoneal Oxaliplatin Delivery via Heated COSafety and health at work · 2026Article
- Consensus statement on safety measures for pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy.Pleura and peritoneum · 2021Article
- Histological regression of gastrointestinal peritoneal metastases after systemic chemotherapy.Pleura and peritoneum · 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
objectivePressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new type of intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal carcinosis via minimally invasive surgery. This technique's specificity is the remote application of the therapy because of the potential risk of exposure to toxic products. The present paper summarises the important aspects of PIPAC and analyses the anaesthetic outcomes.
methodsThis retrospective study included all patients undergoing PIPAC treatment between January 2015 and February 2018. Data on protocol adherence and perioperative anaesthetic complications and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and pain levels (visual analogue scale 0-10) from recovery room to 72 h were analysed.
resultsThe overall analysis included 193 PIPAC procedures on 87 patients. Protocol adherence was high as regards the use of propofol (100%), rocuronium (98%), antiemetic prophylaxis (99%) and lidocaine intravenous (i.v.) (87%). No accidental exposure to chemotherapy occurred during the study period. Of the 87 patients, 6.3% suffered delayed recovery, 58% due to hypothermia and 42% due to excessive sedation or curarisation. In the recovery room, 16% of patients suffered moderate to severe pain, requiring >8 mg of morphine i.v., with average doses of 13.7 mg. Median postoperative pain scores were 1 and 3 at 12 h and 0 and 0 at 72 h at rest and mobilisation, respectively. PONV was observed in <10% of patients during the first 12 h, but in 40% at 72 h.
conclusionA dedicated anaesthetic protocol and intraoperative safety checklist facilitates safe, well-tolerated anaesthesia for PIPAC treatments.
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.