ReviewPleura and peritoneum2024
Outcomes of minimal access cytoreductive surgery (M-CRS) and HIPEC/EPIC vs. open cytoreductive surgery (O-CRS) and HIPEC/EPIC in patients with peritoneal surface malignancies: a meta-analysis.
Review in Pleura and peritoneum, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic-assisted cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC): a minimally invasive approach for peritoneal carcinomatosis in patients with low burden disease.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Robotic Cytoreductive Surgery with HIPEC in Low-Burden Appendiceal Neoplasm: Expanding the Boundaries of Minimally Invasive Oncology.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- New insights in the management of pseudomyxoma peritonei.Journal of surgical oncology · 2024Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Minimal Access Surgery (MAS) has shown better peri-operative outcomes with equivalent oncological outcomes in gastrointestinal and thoracic oncology. Open CRS (O-CRS) procedure accompanies inevitable and significant surgical morbidity in patients. The aim of the review article is to compare outcomes of M-CRS and HIPEC/EPIC with open procedure in peritoneal surface malignancies. Content: Comprehensive search of databases was done and total 2,807 articles were found (2793-PubMed and 14-Cochrane review). PRISMA flow chart was prepared and 14 articles were selected. Meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA guidelines using random-effects model (DerSimonian Laird) and fixed effect model. Publication bias was tested with Funnel plot and Egger's regression test. Quality of studies was assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Summary and Outlook: Patients in both groups [total (732), M-CRS(319), O-CRS(413)] were similar in demographic characteristics. Peri-operative outcomes were significantly better in M-CRS group in terms of blood loss SMD=-2.379, p<0.001 (95 % CI -2.952 to -1.805), blood transfusion RR=0.598, p=0.011 (95 % CI 0.402 to 0.889), bowel recovery SMD=-0.843, p=0.01 (95 % CI -1.487 to -0.2), hospital stay SMD=-2.348, p<0.001 (95 % CI -3.178 to -1.519) and total morbidity RR=0.538, p<0.001 (95 % CI 0.395 to 0.731). Duration of surgery SMD=-0.0643 (95 % CI -0.993 to 0.865, p=0.892) and CC0 score RR=1.064 (95 % CI 0.992 to 1.140, p=0.083) had no significant difference. Limited studies which evaluated survival showed similar outcomes. This meta-analysis shows that M-CRS and HIPEC/EPIC is feasible and has better peri-operative outcomes compared to open procedure in patients with limited peritoneal carcinoma index (PCI) peritoneal surface malignancies. Survival outcomes were not calculated. Further studies are warranted in this regard.
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.