Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40649161›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025

Intraoperative Cell Salvage in Oncologic Surgery: A Comprehensive Review.

Ward H van der Ven, Markus W Hollmann

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ward H van der VenDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0508-0620
Markus W HollmannDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intraoperative cell salvage (ICS) is a blood conservation technique utilized in major surgery, yet its application in oncologic procedures remains debated. Concerns persist about the theoretical risk of metastasis through reinfusion of tumor cells, despite the established disadvantages of allogeneic blood transfusion (ABT), such as transfusion-related reactions and immunosuppression. In this review, we discuss the historical development of ICS, the technical processes of ICS including leukocyte depletion filtration and irradiation, and experimental and clinical data regarding its safety and efficacy. In vitro studies suggest that tumor cells undergo significant structural alterations during ICS processing, and additional filtration further reduces cell load, although complete removal is not always achieved. Observational studies of predominantly moderate quality, aggregated in multiple systematic reviews, consistently report no increased recurrence rates or reduced disease-free and overall survival in patients receiving ICS. Accordingly, national and international guidelines endorse the use of ICS during oncologic surgery. Although high-quality data-preferably from randomized controlled trials-are lacking, and certainty of available evidence from observational studies is low, ICS appears to be effective and safe. The broader adoption of its use during oncologic surgery may be warranted to minimize reliance on ABT and its associated risks.

Indexed as

autologous blood transfusionerythrocyte transfusionoperative blood salvagesurgical oncology

Identifiers

PMID40649161
PMCPMC12251436

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.