ANZ journal of surgery · 2024
A systematic review of minimally invasive cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with peritoneal malignancy.
Систематический обзорСтатьяМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cohen Lauren, Alam Faizah, Flood Michael P, Mohan Helen, Jain Anshini, Guerra Glen, Heriot Alexander G, Kong Joseph C H
Аннотация
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.
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.