Anastomotic leakage after cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for colorectal cancer

Feenstra, Tim M; Verberne, Charlotte Julia; Kok, Niels F. M.; Aalbers, Arend Geert Johan

doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2022.05.018

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They did not analyze PCI in relation to IH but did find PCI > 20 to correlate with overall survival [ 34 ]. Of note, our included studies did not report the effect of stoma formation on IH rates, however, previous research has shown rates of anastomotic leak and prognosis seem to be within the established range when stomas are fashioned in CRS [ 60 , 61 ]. Further research relating stoma formation to IH outcomes may be clinically useful.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incisional hernias post cytoreductive surgery/peritonectomy and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Mac Curtain,

Qian,

Temperley

et al. 2023

Hernia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) is often combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for the treatment of peritoneal tumour deposits. Considering CRS, the evidence relating the large incisions, local chemotherapy and abdominal wall trauma to incisional hernias (IH) has not been synthesized. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to examine the proportion of IH present in patients post CRS and the effect HIPEC had on these rates. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Registry of Trials were searched up to June 2023 to examine studies relating IH and CRS plus or minus HIPEC. The most up to date PRISMA guidelines were followed. Pertinent clinical information was synthesized in tabular form. A meta-analysis reporting the pooled proportions of IH post CRS plus or minus HIPEC, the odds of IH in HIPEC versus non-HIPEC CRS and the difference in follow-up time between groups was conducted. Results Nine studies comprising 1416 patients were included. The pooled proportion of IH post CRS was 12% (95% confidence interval (CI) 8–16%) in HIPEC and 7% (95% CI 4–10%) in non-HIPEC patients and 11% (95% CI 7–14%) overall. Previously reported rates of IH in midline laparotomy range from 10 to 30%. The odds of IH in the HIPEC was 1.9 times higher compared to non-HIPEC cohorts however this was not statistically significant (odds ratio (OR) 1.9, 95% 0.7–5.2; p = 0.21). There was no significant difference in average follow-up times between HIPEC and non-HIPEC cohorts. Conclusions IH post CRS plus or minus HIPEC were in the expected range for midline laparotomies. IH in patients receiving HIPEC may occur at a greater proportion than in non-HIPEC patients, however, there were too few studies in our meta-analysis to determine this with statistical significance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%