ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2026
Comparative Analysis of PIPAC Nozzle Designs: Ex Vivo Evaluation of Aerosol Distribution, Penetration, and Tissue Concentration.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2026. 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.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA comparative ex vivo study was conducted to evaluate the impact of different nebulizer designs on spatial distribution, tissue concentration, and penetration depth of drugs delivered via pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). MATERIALS AND
methodsThree nebulizer designs were evaluated in a PIPAC box: group 1 [full spray cone-multidirectional nebulizer (FSC-MDN)], group 2 [full spray cone-single directional nebulizer], and group 3 [hollow spray cone-single directional nebulizer]. Spatial aerosol deposition was measured using methylene blue for three-dimensional gravimetry in gram (g). PIPACs with doxorubicin and cisplatin were performed to assess penetration depth (µm) and drug concentrations (µg/g) in porcine peritoneal tissue samples from the bottom, sides, and top of the box. Doxorubicin penetration was evaluated using fluorescence microscopy, and cisplatin concentrations were quantified using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry.
resultsGroup 3 had significantly higher methylene blue deposition at the bottom (35.59 ± 1.46 g) compared with group 1 (24.2 ± 0.23 g, p = 0.0022) and group 2 (31.47 ± 0.52 g, p = 0.0001). Conversely, group 1 showed significantly greater side and top deposition (10.11 ± 0.26 g) than groups 2 (5.01 ± 0.68 g, p = 0.0022) and 3 (3.99 ± 0.42 g, p = 0.0022). Group 1 also demonstrated higher cisplatin concentrations (6.254 ± 2.57 µg/g, p = 0.05) and deeper doxorubicin penetration (179.9 ± 78.77 µm, p = 0.05) than the other groups.
conclusionsCompared with the other single directional nebulizers, group 1 (FSC-MDN) achieved greater side and top deposition, along with enhanced doxorubicin penetration and platinum concentration in the ex vivo PIPAC model.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41214259What 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.