ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Laparoscopic versus open approach for interval cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a matched comparative study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Minimally invasive hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy at the time of interval cytoreductive surgery for ovarian cancer: a case report.Journal of surgical case reports · 2026Article
- PSOGI consensus on minimally invasive surgery for peritoneal surface malignancy.The British journal of surgery · 2026Article
- Minimally Invasive Surgery for the Management of Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.O&G open · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of the laparoscopic approach for the treatment of carcinomatosis from epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of both laparoscopic and open approach for interval CRS+HIPEC in a matched cohort of patients with advanced EOC.
methodsA retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database including 254 patients treated with interval CRS-HIPEC between January 2016 and December 2021 was performed. Patients with primary disease and limited carcinomatosis (PCI ≤ 10) were selected. A comparative analysis of patients treated by either open (O-CRS-HIPEC) or the laparoscopic (L-CRS-HIPEC) approach was conducted. Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and perioperative outcomes were analysed.
resultsFifty-three patients were finally selected and enrolled into two comparable groups in this study. Of these, 14 patients were treated by interval L-CRS-HIPEC and 39 by interval O-CRS-HIPEC. The L-CRS-HIPEC group had a shorter hospital stay (5.6 ± 1.9 vs. 9.7 ± 9.8 days; p < 0.001) and a shorter time to return to systemic chemotherapy (4.3 ± 1.9 vs. 10.3 ± 16.8 weeks; p = 0.003). There were no significant differences in postoperative complications between both groups. The 2-year OS and DFS was 100% and 62% in the L-CRS-HIPEC group versus 92% and 60% in the O-CRS-HIPEC group, respectively (p = 0.96; p = 0.786).
conclusionThis study suggests that the use of interval L-CRS-HIPEC for primary advanced EOC is associated with shorter hospital stay and return to systemic treatment while obtaining similar oncological results compared to the open approach. Further prospective research is needed to recommend this new approach for these strictly selected patients.
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.