A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

A systematic review of minimally invasive cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with peritoneal malignancy. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) have shifted from traditional invasive methods to minimally invasive (MI) techniques in select cases to reduce recovery complications.
  • A systematic review of 13 studies involving 462 MI patients showed no significant difference in major postoperative complications compared to open surgery, though MI patients tended to have shorter hospital stays.
  • The findings suggest that MI CRS and HIPEC is a safe option for certain patients, but more research is needed on long-term outcomes, especially for aggressive tumors like colorectal peritoneal metastases.

Article Abstract

Background: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is traditionally a maximally invasive operation with a large abdominal incision and multi-visceral resections. However, to minimize abdominal wall morbidity and improve functional recovery, some centres have adopted a minimally invasive (MI) approach in select cases. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the evidence for safety and patient selection for minimally invasive approaches to CRS and HIPEC with curative intent.

Methods: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review was performed using three electronic databases: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science. Data regarding postoperative morbidity was meta-analysed.

Results: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria (N = 462 MI patients), all of which were retrospective in design. Six studies included an open comparison group. Pseudomyxoma peritonei, mesothelioma and ovarian carcinoma made up the majority of cases (>90%), with a PCI < 10 listed as a prerequisite to selection across all studies. On pooled analysis there was no difference in major morbidity between MI and open groups (OR 0.52 95% CI 0.18-1.46, P = 0.33). There was one perioperative death reported in the MI group. Length of stay appeared shorter in the MI group (median range MI: 4-11 v Open: 7-13 days). Short-term recurrence and overall survival between both groups also appeared no different.

Conclusion: Minimally invasive CRS and HIPEC appears feasible and safe in appropriately selected patients. Clear histological stratification and longer term follow up is required to determine oncological safety, particularly in more aggressive tumours such as colorectal peritoneal metastases.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ans.19021DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

systematic review
12
minimally invasive
12
cytoreductive surgery
8
hyperthermic intraperitoneal
8
intraperitoneal chemotherapy
8
review minimally
4
invasive
4
invasive cytoreductive
4
surgery hyperthermic
4
chemotherapy patients
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!