ArticleHeliyon2024
Urological outcomes following pelvic exenteration for non-urological malignancies.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a major surgical procedure used as a salvage therapy for patients with locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies. Urinary reconstruction is a major part of PE and is often associated with high rates of post-operative complications. In the current study we evaluate the short and long-term urological outcomes following PE for Colo-Rectal (CR) and gyneco-oncological (GO) malignancies. Methods: Study included 22 patients who underwent PE for recurrent or locally advanced CR and GO malignancies in our institution between the years 2010-2018. The endpoint was post-operative freedom from urological complications. Results: Of 22 patients included, 13 (59 %) and 9 (41 %) underwent PE for CR and GO malignancies respectively. The mean age of the patients was 54 years. The median follow-up was 19 months. Seven (78 %) patients with GO malignancy and 11 (85 %) with CR malignancy underwent PE for local recurrence. Hydronephrosis prior to surgery existed in 8 (36.3 %) patients, of which, 5 patients required kidney drainage via nephrostomy tube. Two patients underwent posterior pelvic exenteration (PPE) with bladder preservation whereas the remaining 20 underwent cystectomy with urinary diversion by ileal conduit. Hydronephrosis post PE developed in 13 patients (59 %). eight (36 %) patients needed kidney drainage by nephrostomy tubes post PE, of these, 6 (75 %) had disease recurrence. The 2 years freedom from kidney drainage was 68 %, however the median time for kidney drainage was 0.5 months. The median overall survival was 12.5 months. Conclusion: The rate of urological complications following PE is relatively high and associated with disease recurrence.
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.