ReviewAnnals of surgical oncology2026
Historical Evolution of Pelvic Exenteration Surgery in Gynecologic Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Brunschwig's Era versus Contemporary Practice.
Review 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPelvic exenteration (PE) is a radical surgical option for locally advanced or recurrent gynecologic cancers, but its contemporary risk-benefit profile has never been systematically compared with the original Brunschwig experience. The purpose of the study was to quantify changes in major postoperative morbidity, perioperative mortality, and oncologic outcomes after PE between Brunschwig-era series (1954-1969) and contemporary series (1990-2024). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was an International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO)-registered (CRD420251009209) systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched through December 2024 for studies reporting complications, mortality, or survival after pelvic exenteration for gynecologic malignancies. Two reviewers independently performed study selection and data extraction. Major morbidity was harmonized to Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher (or equivalent). Random-effects meta-analyses were performed where appropriate. All eligible studies identified were retrospective series.
resultsA total of 34 studies (5478 patients; 913 historical and 4565 contemporary) were included. Major morbidity decreased from 58% (95% CI 46-68%) in historical series to 23% (95% CI 17-31%) in contemporary series, while perioperative mortality declined from 23 (95% CI 17-30%) to 3% (95% CI 2-4%). Contemporary series also reported improved oncologic outcomes, although heterogeneity and differences in follow-up precluded direct survival comparisons.
conclusionsCompared with the original Brunschwig era, contemporary pelvic exenteration is associated with substantially lower major morbidity and perioperative mortality, together with improved oncologic outcomes. These findings illustrate the remarkable technical and conceptual evolution of pelvic exenteration over the past seven decades, although direct comparisons between historical and contemporary series should be interpreted cautiously because of differences in patient selection and clinical practice over time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42853500What 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.