ReviewLangenbeck's archives of surgery2021
Pelvic exenteration, cytoreductive surgery, and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal surface malignancy: experience and outcomes from an exenterative and peritonectomy unit.
Review in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePelvic exenteration (PE) for locally advanced pelvic malignancy is well established, though high rates of morbidity and mortality exist. Such a complication profile has often deterred the surgical community from offering exenteration in combination with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). We aimed to evaluate the perioperative outcomes following pelvic exenteration when combined with CRS and HIPEC for peritoneal surface malignancy (PSM) in a tertiary referral centre.
methodsA review of a prospectively maintained PSM database from June 2015 to December 2020 at a tertiary referral institution was performed. Patients who underwent CRS, PE, and HIPEC were matched with patients who underwent PE alone. Primary endpoints were perioperative morbidity and mortality.
resultsFrom June 2015 to December 2020, 20 patients required PE as part of their CRS and HIPEC for PSM. The majority of patients were female (n = 16, 80%) with a median age of 52 (range 21-70). Colorectal cancer was the predominant pathology (n = 12, 60%). Median PCI was 11.5 (range 3-39). CC0 and R0 resections were achieved in all patients. CRS, PE, and HIPEC and PE-alone groups were well matched for clinicopathological variables. There was no difference in perioperative major morbidity (HIPEC: 30% vs PE: 15% p = 0.256) and mortality (HIPEC: 0 vs PE: 5% p = 0.311) between groups. Median follow-up was 17.5 months (range 7-68). Eight patients (40%) died from disease-related issues during the study period.
conclusionAn aggressive surgical strategy with complete resection is feasible and safe in select patients with complex PSM involving the pelvis.
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.