Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34222648›Full record

ArticlePleura and peritoneum2021

Current practice and perceptions of safety protocols for the use of intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the operating room: results of the IP-OR international survey.

Daniel Clerc, Martin Hübner, K R Ashwin, S P Somashekhar, Beate Rau, Wim Ceelen, Wouter Willaert, Naoual Bakrin, Nathalie Laplace, Mohammed Al Hosni and 12 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pleura and peritoneum, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Advances in the management of peritoneal malignancies.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2022
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors.

Daniel ClercDepartment of Visceral Surgery, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9285-3312
Martin HübnerDepartment of Visceral Surgery, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4521-8279
K R AshwinDepartment of Surgical Oncology and Robotic Surgery, Manipal Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
S P SomashekharDepartment of Surgical Oncology and Robotic Surgery, Manipal Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7898-1625
Beate RauDepartment of Surgery, Campus Virchow-Klinikum and Charité Campus Mitte, Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5820-6907
Wim CeelenDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Ghent University Hospital Belgium, Gent, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7692-4419
Wouter WillaertDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Ghent University Hospital Belgium, Gent, Belgium.
Naoual BakrinDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Lyon-Sud University Hospital, Lyon, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4634-6712
Nathalie LaplaceDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Lyon-Sud University Hospital, Lyon, France.
Mohammed Al HosniDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Cancer Institute of Montpellier (ICM), Montpellier, France.
Edgar Luis Garcia LozcanoDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Cancer Institute of Montpellier (ICM), Montpellier, France.
Sebastian BlajDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Krankenhaus Barmherzige Brüder, Regensburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5830-9797
Pompiliu PisoDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Krankenhaus Barmherzige Brüder, Regensburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7146-4505
Andrea Di GiorgioPeritoneum and Retroperitoneum Surgical Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3981-1145
Giuseppe VizzelliPeritoneum and Retroperitoneum Surgical Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Cécile BrigandDepartment of General and Digestive Surgery, Hautepierre Hospital, Strasbourg University Hospital, Strasbourg, France.
Jean-Baptiste DelhormeDepartment of General and Digestive Surgery, Hautepierre Hospital, Strasbourg University Hospital, Strasbourg, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4581-3123
Amandine KlipfelDepartment of General and Digestive Surgery, Hautepierre Hospital, Strasbourg University Hospital, Strasbourg, France.
Rami ArchidDepartment of General and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Tübingen and National Center for Pleura and Peritoneum, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0814-7723
Giorgi NadiradzeDepartment of General and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Tübingen and National Center for Pleura and Peritoneum, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6374-8778
Marc A ReymondDepartment of General and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Tübingen and National Center for Pleura and Peritoneum, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5521-6237
Olivia SgarburaDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Cancer Institute of Montpellier (ICM), Montpellier, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6965-3697

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the risk perception and the uptake of measures preventing environment-related risks in the operating room (OR) during hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC).

methodsA multicentric, international survey among OR teams in high-volume HIPEC and PIPAC centers: Surgeons (Surg), Scrub nurses (ScrubN), Anesthesiologists (Anest), Anesthesiology nurses (AnesthN), and OR Cleaning staff (CleanS). Scores extended from 0-10 (maximum).

resultsTen centers in six countries participated in the study (response rate 100%). Two hundred and eleven responses from 68 Surg (32%), 49 ScrubN (23%), 45 Anest (21%), 31 AnesthN (15%), and 18 CleanS (9%) were gathered. Individual uptake of protection measures was 51.4%, similar among professions and between HIPEC and PIPAC. Perceived levels of protection were 7.57 vs. 7.17 for PIPAC and HIPEC, respectively (p<0.05), with Anesth scoring the lowest (6.81). Perceived contamination risk was 4.19 for HIPEC vs. 3.5 for PIPAC (p<0.01). Information level was lower for CleanS and Anesth for HIPEC and PIPAC procedures compared to all other responders (6.48 vs. 4.86, and 6.48 vs. 5.67, p<0.01). Willingness to obtain more information was 86%, the highest among CleanS (94%).

conclusionsExperience with the current practice of safety protocols was similar during HIPEC and PIPAC. The individual uptake of protection measures was rather low. The safety perception was better for PIPAC, but the perceived level of protection remained relatively low. The willingness to obtain more information was high. Intensified, standardized training of all OR team members involved in HIPEC and PIPAC is meaningful.

Indexed as

environmental protectionpersonal protective equipmentPIPAC and HIPEC safety

Identifiers

PMID34222648
PMCPMC8223803

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.