ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open cytoreductive surgery: a propensity score matching analysis.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCytoreductive surgery (CRS) combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a complex and lengthy surgical procedure involving multi-visceral resection, characterized by a steep and non-standardized learning curve. Therefore, laparoscopic surgery has faced significant challenges in being adopted for cytoreduction of peritoneal metastases. However, advancements in laparoscopic techniques have gradually allowed the adoption, in a limited and selected patient population, of laparoscopy as a less invasive approach, while still enabling maximal tumor debulking. The aim of this study is to compare the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic CRS (L-CRS) and open cytoreductive surgery (O-CRS) with or without HIPEC, using propensity score matching analysis.
methodsThis retrospective, single-center study analyzed data from 364 patients who underwent CRS + HIPEC for a primary peritoneal tumor or with peritoneal carcinomatosis from various origins between January 2016 and December 2023. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis included the surgical technique (Open-CRS vs. Laparoscopic-CRS) as the dependent variable and baseline characteristics as covariates in a logistic regression model. The two postmatching groups, O-CRS and L-CRS, were compared regarding intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes.
resultsThere were no significant differences in operative time (L-CRS/HIPEC: 372 min vs. O-CRS/HIPEC: 457 min; p = 0.754). Complete cytoreduction (CC-0) was achieved in all patients in both groups. L-CRS/HIPEC patients showed faster oral intake (2 days vs. 3 days; p = 0.035), the earlier passage of first flatus (3 days vs. 5 days; p = 0.043), shorter hospital stay (5 days vs. 7 days; p = 0.047), and quicker recovery to chemotherapy (29 days vs. 43 days; p = 0.024).
conclusionL-CRS offers selected patients a faster clinical recovery, shorter hospital stay, and quicker return to systemic chemotherapy. Nonetheless, prospective randomized trials are necessary to establish robust selection criteria and to evaluate the long-term oncological outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40779135What 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.