ArticleThe Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology2026
Resecting Beyond the Central Pelvic Compartment in Pelvic Exenterations for Gynaecological Malignancies: Outcomes From a Tertiary Unit.
Article in The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology, 2026. 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.
- Resecting Beyond the Central Pelvic Compartment in Pelvic Exenterations for Gynaecological Malignancies: Outcomes From a Tertiary Unit.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPelvic exenterations (PE) in solid organ gynaecological malignancies have historically been confined to the central pelvic compartment but an expansion of resection extent to include the lateral compartment is now technically feasible. There remains uncertainty about its influence on outcomes.
methodsRetrospective study of consecutive patients undergoing PE for non-ovarian gynaecological malignancies in a tertiary referral unit. Two groups were assessed and compared: standard resections including but not beyond the pelvic sidewall (SR); and extended resections beyond the pelvic side wall (lateral compartment excisions; internal iliac vessels and/or obturator internus/piriformis resection and/or bone resection) (ER).
resultsThirty-one patients underwent 32 PE: of these, 21 patients underwent SR (65.6%) with 11 who underwent ER (34.4%). Clear microscopic resection margins (R0) were achieved in 72.7% for ER versus 90.5% for SR. The overall 30-day major complication rate (≥Clavien-Dindo III) was 45.5% for the ER group versus 19.9% for SR. Median length-of-stay for ER was longer than for SR (38 vs. 18.5 days). The 1-year DFS for ER was 66.7% versus 77.8% for SR. The 2-year DFS for ER group was 60% versus 57.1% for SR.
conclusionsIn this study of contemporary patients, the short-term patient outcomes of ER were consistent with other similar cohorts in the literature and comparable to SR in this cohort. There is an urgent need for larger multicentre studies to clarify the influence of PE resectional extent on resection margin status, patient outcomes and survival.
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.