ArticleCancers2021
Opportunities and Limitations of Pelvic Exenteration Surgery.
Article in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Pre-Operative Nutritional Status on Postoperative Outcomes Following Pelvic Exenteration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.ANZ journal of surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic Beyond Total Mesorectal Excision (bTME) for locally advanced and recurrent anorectal cancer: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic review of oncosurgical and quality of life outcomes following pelvic exenteration for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2025Pooled it
- Quality of Life After Extended Pelvic Surgery with Neurovascular or Bony Resections in Gynecological Oncology: A Systematic Review.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Pooled it
- The evolving role of open abdominal surgery in gynecological malignancies in the era of minimally invasive and precision oncology.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Review
- Evaluation of the Distress Thermometer in Pelvic Exenteration: Responsiveness-To-Change, Convergent Validity, and Clinical Cutoff.Psycho-oncology · 2026Article
- Creating pelvic exenteration services: obstacles, cultural factors, and learning experiences from the first specialized service in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Case Report: First report of PIK3CA-related overgrowth spectrum revealed by refractory chylorrhea after breast-conserving surgery: failed thoracic-duct ligation.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Review
- Comment on "Robotic beyond total mesorectal excision (bTME) for locally advanced and recurrent anorectal cancer: a systematic review".Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Robotic versus open and laparoscopic pelvic exenterations for pelvic cancer: a multicenter propensity-matched analysis in Japan.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Outcomes Following Treatment of Pelvic Exenteration for Rectal Cancer in a Tertiary Care Center.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Intraoperative implantation of 125I seeds improves prognosis in refractory stage IIIB cervical cancer: a case report and literature review.BMC women's health · 2024Review
- Robotic or laparoscopic pelvic exenteration for gynecological malignancies: feasible options to open surgery.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2024Article
- Review
- R0 Resection in Recurrent Gynecologic Malignancy: Pelvic Exenteration and Beyond.Current treatment options in oncology · 2023Review
- Survival as a clinical outcome and its spiritual significance in a cohort of patients with advanced central pelvic neoplastic disease undergoing total pelvic evisceration: a poorly debated issue.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe practice of exenterative surgery is sometimes controversial and has garnered a certain scepticism. Surgical studies are difficult to conduct due to insufficient data. The aim of this review is to present the current standing of pelvic exenteration from a surgical, gynaecological and urological point of view.
methodsThis review is based upon a literature review (MEDLINE (PubMed), CENTRAL (Cochrane) and EMBASE (Elsevier)) of retrospective studies on exenterative surgery from 1993-2020. Using MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) search terms, 1572 publications were found. These were evaluated and screened with respect to their eligibility using algorithms and well-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Therefore, the guidelines for systematic reviews (PRISMA) were used.
resultsA complete tumour resection (R0) often represents the only curative option for advanced pelvic carcinomas and their recurrences. A recent systematic review showed significant symptom relief in 80% of palliative patients after pelvic exenteration. Surgical limitations (distant metastases, involvement of the pelvic wall, etc.) are diminished by adequate surgical expertise and close interdisciplinary cooperation. While the mortality rate is low (2-5%), the still relatively high morbidity rate (32-84%) can be minimized by optimizing the perioperative setting. Following exenterations, roughly 79-82% of patients report satisfying results according to PROs (patient-reported outcomes).
conclusionDue to multimodality treatment strategies combined with extended surgical expertise and patients' preferences, pelvic exenteration can be offered nowadays with low mortality and acceptable postoperative quality of life. The possibilities of surgical treatment are often underestimated. A multi-centre database (PelvEx Collaborative) was established to collect data and experiences to optimize the research in this field.
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.