Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleClinical Studies

Impact of Cytoreductive Surgery and HIPEC on Intraoperative Gastrointestinal Wall Thickness and Patient Outcomes

MICHELLE ZHIYUN CHEN, DANIEL L. CHAN, MOHAMMAD S. ALSHAHRANI, KHALED ALTOUKHI, NAYEF ALZAHRANI and DAVID L. MORRIS
Anticancer Research May 2020, 40 (5) 2865-2869; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.14262
MICHELLE ZHIYUN CHEN
1Department of Surgery, St. George Hospital, Kogarah, NSW, Australia
2Faculty of Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DANIEL L. CHAN
1Department of Surgery, St. George Hospital, Kogarah, NSW, Australia
2Faculty of Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
3Faculty of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MOHAMMAD S. ALSHAHRANI
1Department of Surgery, St. George Hospital, Kogarah, NSW, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
KHALED ALTOUKHI
1Department of Surgery, St. George Hospital, Kogarah, NSW, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
NAYEF ALZAHRANI
1Department of Surgery, St. George Hospital, Kogarah, NSW, Australia
2Faculty of Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
4College of Medicine, Imam Muhammad ibn Saud Islamic University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DAVID L. MORRIS
1Department of Surgery, St. George Hospital, Kogarah, NSW, Australia
2Faculty of Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: David.Morris@unsw.edu.au
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is associated with significant postoperative ileus (POI). This study examined intraoperative gastrointestinal wall thickness (GWT) and its association with patient outcomes. Patients and Methods: A prospective study of patients undergoing CRS and HIPEC. Proximal and distal small intestine GWT, before and after HIPEC were recorded. Results: Thirty-four patients (mean age=56.1 years, 61.8% female) were recruited. After HIPEC, the mean proximal (4.5 vs. 3.0 mm, p=0.03) and distal (4.3 vs. 3.4 mm, p<0.01) GWT were increased. Increased GWT was associated with prolonged operative time (10 vs. 8.5 h, p=0.03) and total length of stay (35.71 vs. 21.25 days, p=0.02). Postoperative ileus occurred in 23.5% of patients but differences between GWT groups did not reach significance (28.6% vs. 20%, p=0.56). Conclusion: GWT increased significantly during CRS and HIPEC and is reflective of tissue trauma and oedema. This was associated with prolonged operative time, total length of stay and post-operative ileus.

  • Cytoreductive surgery
  • heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy
  • ileus
  • length of stay
  • small intestine

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) for management of regionally advanced intra-abdominal malignancy can achieve improved disease-free and overall survival (1). Traditionally considered incurable, peritoneal dissemination of malignancy is increasingly managed with CRS and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for a range of both primary and recurrent disease (2-4). Reflecting the magnitude of the intervention, the survival benefit of CRS and HIPEC is weighed against high perioperative morbidity. Although a learning curve of surgical experience is recognised, even in experienced high-volume centres, mortality of around 4% and morbidity about 42% are reported (5, 6).

The morbidity of delay in return to gastrointestinal function and postoperative ileus in the context of major abdominal CRS is recognised. Postoperative ileus leads to nausea, vomiting, bloating and reduced tolerance to oral intake, which negatively affects outcomes, including hospital length of stay (LOS) (7, 8). The addition of HIPEC to CRS likely has a compounding effect on bowel trauma and gastrointestinal function. Postoperative ileus following CRS and HIPEC has been reported in 15-54% of patients and accounts for about 15% of early hospital re-admissions (9-11).

Although the exact cellular and molecular mechanisms of postoperative ileus remain unclear, there is a significant overlap with patients being critically unwell (12). Radiological measurement of gastrointestinal wall thickness (GWT) is used as a predictor of ischaemia in intestinal obstruction (13). GWT secondary to oedema has been associated with being critically unwell, judicious fluid resuscitation and is associated with delayed intestinal transit in animal models (12-14). There is a paucity of literature on intraoperative measurements of GWT and associations with postoperative ileus or other patient outcomes. Our study aimed to examine the association between intraoperative GWT measurements and patient outcomes in patient undergoing CRS and HIPEC.

Patients and Methods

A prospective study was conducted in 2018 at a major referral centre for CRS and HIPEC with two experience surgeons and a high case volume. A power calculation for sample size was not performed due to the pilot nature of this study and the lack of evidence in the literature to guide such a calculation. Patients were recruited preoperatively. Intraoperative measurements of the GWT at the duodenojejunal flexure (DJ) and terminal ileum (TI) were taken with calipers. Measurements were taken after entry into the abdominal cavity before HIPEC, and after HIPEC prior to abdominal closure and recorded on the operation report. Of note, our centre routinely performs gastrointestinal anastomosis, when required, after HIPEC. The primary outcome was the effect of CRS and HIPEC on GWT. Secondary outcome was assessment of outcomes when comparing patients with increased versus non-increased GWT. Additional clinical data including patient demographics, disease characteristics (type, primary vs. second CRS), intraoperative findings (peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI), enterotomy or serosal injury, HIPEC time, operative time) and postoperative outcomes (first defaecation, anastomotic leak, postoperative ileus, total and intensive care LOS) were retrieved through electronic medical records.

Recovery of gastrointestinal motility was measured by day of first defaecation. POI was diagnosed when the first defaecation was on postoperative day 6 or later, consistent with literature (11). Increased GWT was defined as an increase in of 3 mm or more of the combined DJ and TI wall thickness. Eligibility criteria included: Adult patients (>18 years of age); with peritoneal carcinomatosis of any primary pathology; undergoing CRS and HIPEC; consent to participate. Exclusion criteria included: Undergoing debulking surgery only; no HIPEC. This study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Review Board.

Descriptive statistics were tabulated and are reported as number (%) and mean±standard deviation (range). Differences in means were assessed with independent and paired t-tests. Differences in categorical variables by Pearson Chi-squared test where appropriate. A value of p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analysis was conducted with SPSS Version 25.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

Results

Thirty-four patients were recruited in this study. The average age was 56.1±13.6 (range=27-81) years. The majority were female (61.8%). The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status of patients was 3 or 4 in 88.2%. The most frequent malignancy was colorectal cancer (35.3%). The mean total PCI was 19±12.5 (range=2-39), and mean small bowel PCI was 3±2.8 (range=0-9). Of these patients, 28 (82.4%) had a completeness of cytoreduction score (CC) of CC0 and the remaining six patients (17.6%) had CC1 (Table I).

The mean pre-HIPEC DJ wall thickness was less than that post-HIPEC (3.0 vs. 4.5 mm, p=0.03). The mean pre-HIPEC TI wall thickness was also less than that post-HIPEC (3.4 vs. 4.3 mm, p<0.01). Increased GWT in DJ and TI was present in 14 (41.2%) patients. This increase in GWT was not significantly different amongst the males and females (p=0.33) in our study. Small intestine PCI or total PCI also did not significantly affect increase in GWT (p=0.34; p=0.97). Increase in GWT was not associated with the type of surgery (p=0.67), duration of HIPEC (p=0.47) or intraoperative serosal injury or enterotomy (p=0.26).

Overall, eight patients (23.5%) had postoperative ileus. When comparing patients with and without increased combined GWT, frequency of postoperative ileus was increased but did not reach significance (28.6 vs. 20%, p=0.347). Both operative time (10 vs. 8.5 h, p=0.03) and total LOS (35.71 vs. 21.25 days, p=0.02) were significantly longer in those who had increased GWT. Intensive care LOS was also longer but did not reach statistical significance (6.14±4.4 vs. 4.00±2.2 days, p=0.07). There was no difference in return to gastrointestinal function in those with and without increased combined GWT (4.6±2.1 vs. 4.9±1.9 days, p=0.77). There was no anastomotic leak or mortality in our series.

Discussion

CRS and HIPEC are two parts of a treatment modality for peritoneal carcinomatosis. First described in 1980, CRS with perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy has been the standard of care for all cases of mucinous appendiceal neoplasms with peritoneal dissemination, without distant metastases, for almost two decades (15, 16). In a 2006 consensus statement, it was recognised that standardization of CRS and HIPEC technique significantly improved survival of Stage IV colon cancer (17). As a reflection of procedural complexity, there is a wide range of reported perioperative morbidity (40-80%) and mortality (3-20%) (18). Improvements with appropriate patient selection, high-volume surgeon and centre experience, standardization of CRS and HIPEC and in perioperative management continue to develop. Morbidity and mortality rates are now comparable with similar high-risk surgical oncology procedures, such as oesophagectomy, major hepatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy (19, 20).

Nonetheless, recovery after such a major operation is often associated with delayed recovery of gastrointestinal motility. Postoperative ileus accounts for a large proportion of morbidity and readmissions in patients treated with CRS and HIPEC (10). Our postoperative ileus rate of 23.5% reflects the broader experience. A multitude of factors contribute to the development of postoperative ileus, including surgical manipulation, bowel oedema, anastomotic leakage, intraperitoneal sepsis, pre-operative septic state, high cancer burden and lung disease (21, 22). The exact pathophysiology of postoperative ileus is unclear but direct trauma and fluid resuscitation leads to inflammation of the muscularis propria and reduced gastrointestinal motility (14, 23).

Both DJ and TI GWT were significantly increased after CRS and HIPEC. Not previously defined, we used an approximate 50% increase of GWT (increase ≥3 mm of combined DJ and TI thickness) as the cut-off, given the expected clinical implications of such oedema. Although the primary outcome, postoperative ileus, was increased in patients with increased GWT compared to those without, this did not reach statistical significance (28.6 vs. 20%, p=0.347). However, total LOS was prolonged in these patients (35.71 vs. 21.25 days, p=0.02). The cause for this prolonged LOS is unclear, given the logical concern of delayed return to gastrointestinal function (4.6 vs. 4.9 days, p=0.77) and postoperative ileus rates were not significantly different. We hypothesize that this could be due to small patient numbers in our study leading to type I error.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Patient demographics.

Prolonged operative time (10 vs. 8.5 h, p=0.03) was also noted in patients with increased GWT, without significant differences in disease characteristics, including disease extent (PCI), difficultly of clearance (CC score) and primary vs. second CRS. Whether this increased operative time was a product of the difficulty of gastrointestinal tissue manipulation or a reflection of the cause of prolonged fluid resuscitation is unknown. A meta-analysis recently concluded that a prolonged operative time >2 h increases the likelihood of complications and every 30 min of additional operative time increases this by 14% (24).

GWT was also found in patients with higher small bowel PCI and total PCI (p=0.0336; p=0.97). This is a reflection of increased technical difficulty of CRS but, interestingly, it was not statistically significant. Given the magnitude of CRS and HIPEC, the operative times in our groups well exceeded those of this meta-analysis, although it should be noted that the duration of HIPEC was not significantly different between groups. Perhaps the absolute application of HIPEC, rather than its duration, contributes to increased GWT; however, this was outside of the scope of our study design. Likely, there is a combination of both cause and effect of prolonged operative time on increased GWT in our study.

The limitations of our study were the small patient numbers, subjective intraoperative measurements and measure of gastrointestinal motility recovery. The small patient number reflects the pilot nature of the study, being the first to describe a quantitative intraoperative increase in GWT. Intraoperative GWT measurements are by their nature, subjective. All measurements were taken with the same caliper instrument but timing of measurements was not standardized. We considered this when defining increased GWT to account for possible inter-observer variability. Our definition of recovery of gastrointestinal motility was the day of first postoperative defaecation. Given a recent study that employed both gastric emptying and colonic transit studies, the combination of tolerance of solid diet in addition to day of first defecation may be a better outcome measure (8).

Intraoperative GWT measurement is a novel measure of gastrointestinal tissue trauma. Although anecdotal evidence is available, to our knowledge, this is the first report of quantitative intraoperative GWT findings in the literature. The combination of CRS and HIPEC was associated with significantly increased GWT and prolonged operative time and LOS in our study. The relationship between causative factors, increased GWT and patient outcomes warrant further investigation with larger prospective series.

Footnotes

  • Authors' Contributions

    Study design: D. Morris, N. Alzahrani, M. Alsharani; Intraoperative data collection: M. Chen, D. Chan, M. Alsharani, K. Altoukhi; Data analysis and interpretation: M. Chen, D. Chan; Drafting of article: M. Chen, D. Chan, K. Altoukhi; Final approval of version to be published: D. Morris, N. Alzahrani.

  • Conflicts of Interest

    None.

  • Received March 15, 2020.
  • Revision received April 1, 2020.
  • Accepted April 8, 2020.
  • Copyright© 2020, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved

References

  1. ↵
    1. Sugarbaker PH
    : Peritonectomy procedures. Ann Surg 221(1): 29-42, 1995. PMID: 7826158. DOI: 10.1097/00000658-199501000-00004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Mercier F,
    2. Mohamed F,
    3. Cazauran JB,
    4. Kepenekian V,
    5. Vaudoyer D,
    6. Cotte E,
    7. Glehen O,
    8. Passot G
    : An update of peritonectomy procedures used in cytoreductive surgery for peritoneal malignancy. Int J Hyperthermia 36(1): 744-752, 2019. PMID: 31401893. DOI: 10.1080/02656736.2019.1635717
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Chan DL,
    2. Morris DL,
    3. Rao A,
    4. Chua TC
    : Intraperitoneal chemotherapy in ovarian cancer: A review of tolerance and efficacy. Cancer Manag Res 4: 413-422, 2012. PMID: 23226073. DOI: 10.1080/02656736.2019.1635717
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Williams BH,
    2. Alzahrani NA,
    3. Chan DL,
    4. Chua TC,
    5. Morris DL
    : Repeat cytoreductive surgery (CRS) for recurrent colorectal peritoneal metastases: Yes or no? Eur J Surg Oncol 40(8): 943-949, 2014. PMID: 24378009. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2013.10.022
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Yan TD,
    2. Links M,
    3. Fransi S,
    4. Jacques T,
    5. Black D,
    6. Saunders V,
    7. Morris D
    : Learning curve for cytoreductive surgery and perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal surface malignancy—a journey to becoming a Nationally Funded Peritonectomy Center. Ann Surg Oncol 14(8): 2270-2280, 2007. PMID: 17464543. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-007-9406-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Passot G,
    2. Vaudoyer D,
    3. Villeneuve L,
    4. Kepenekian V,
    5. Beaujard AC,
    6. Bakrin N,
    7. Cotte E,
    8. Gilly F,
    9. Glehen O
    : What made hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy an effective curative treatment for peritoneal surface malignancy: A 25-year experience with 1,125 procedures. J Surg Oncol 113(7): 796-803, 2016. PMID: 27110915. DOI: 10.1002/jso.24248
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Collins TC,
    2. Daley J,
    3. Henderson WH,
    4. Khuri SF
    : Risk factors for prolonged length of stay after major elective surgery. Ann Surg 230(2): 251-259, 1999. PMID: 10450740. DOI: 10.1097/00000658-199908000-00016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. van Bree SH,
    2. Bemelman WA,
    3. Hollmann MW,
    4. Zwinderman AH,
    5. Matteoli G,
    6. El Temna S,
    7. The F,
    8. Vlug M,
    9. Bennink R,
    10. Boeckxstaens G
    : Identification of clinical outcome measures for recovery of gastrointestinal motility in postoperative ileus. Ann Surg 259(4): 708-714, 2014. PMID: 23657087. DOI: 10.1097/sla.0b013e318293ee55
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Cascales Campos PA,
    2. Gil Martinez J,
    3. Galindo Fernandez PJ,
    4. Gil Gomez E,
    5. Martinez Frutos IM,
    6. Parrilla Paricio P
    : Perioperative fast track program in intraoperative hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) after cytoreductive surgery in advanced ovarian cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 37(6): 543-548, 2011. PMID: 21489742. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2011.03.134
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Lee TC,
    2. Wima K,
    3. Sussman JJ,
    4. Ahmad SA,
    5. Cloyd JM,
    6. Ahmed A,
    7. Fournier K,
    8. Lee AJ,
    9. Dineen S,
    10. Powers B,
    11. Veerapong J,
    12. Baumgartner JM,
    13. Clarke C,
    14. Mogal H,
    15. Zaidi MY,
    16. Maithel SK,
    17. Leiting J,
    18. Grotz T,
    19. Lambert L,
    20. Hendrix RJ,
    21. Abbott DE,
    22. Pokrzywa C,
    23. Blakely AM,
    24. Lee B,
    25. Johnston FM,
    26. Greer J,
    27. Patel SH
    : Re-admissions after cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: A US HIPEC Collaborative Study. J Gastrointest Surg 24: 165–176, 2020. PMID: 31745888. DOI: 10.1007/s11605-019-04463-y
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Nors J,
    2. Funder Jonas A,
    3. Swain David R,
    4. Verwaal Victor J,
    5. Cecil T,
    6. Laurberg S,
    7. Moran BJ
    : Postoperative paralytic ileus after cytoreductive surgery combined with heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Pleura Peritoneum 5(1): 20190026, 2019. DOI: 10.1515/pp-2019-0026
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Bauer AJ,
    2. Schwarz NT,
    3. Moore BA,
    4. Turler A,
    5. Kalff JC
    : Ileus in critical illness: mechanisms and management. Curr Opin Crit Care 8(2): 152-157, 2002. PMID: 12386517. DOI: 10.1097/00075198-200204000-00011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Millet I,
    2. Taourel P,
    3. Ruyer A,
    4. Molinari N
    : Value of CT findings to predict surgical ischemia in small bowel obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 25(6): 1823-1835, 2015. PMID: 25850889. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-014-3440-2
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Moore-Olufemi SD,
    2. Xue H,
    3. Attuwaybi BO,
    4. Fischer U,
    5. Harari Y,
    6. Oliver DH,
    7. Weisbrodt N,
    8. Allen SJ,
    9. Moore FA,
    10. Stewart R,
    11. Laine GA,
    12. Cox CS
    : Resuscitation-induced gut edema and intestinal dysfunction. J Trauma 58(2): 264-270, 2005. PMID: 15706186. DOI: 10.1097/01.ta.0000133571.64393.d2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Spratt JS,
    2. Adcock RA,
    3. Muskovin M,
    4. Sherrill W,
    5. McKeown J
    : Clinical delivery system for intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemotherapy. Cancer Res 40(2): 256-260, 1980. PMID: 6766084.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. Gonzalez-Moreno S
    : Peritoneal surface oncology: A progress report. Eur J Surg Oncol 32(6): 593-596, 2006. PMID: 16603332. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2006.03.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Esquivel J,
    2. Sticca R,
    3. Sugarbaker P,
    4. Levine E,
    5. Yan TD,
    6. Alexander R,
    7. Baratti D,
    8. Bartlett D,
    9. Barone R,
    10. Barrios P,
    11. Bieligk S,
    12. Bretcha-Boix P,
    13. Chang CK,
    14. Chu F,
    15. Chu Q,
    16. Daniel S,
    17. de Bree E,
    18. Deraco M,
    19. Dominguez-Parra L,
    20. Elias D,
    21. Flynn R,
    22. Foster J,
    23. Garofalo A,
    24. Gilly FN,
    25. Glehen O,
    26. Gomez-Portilla A,
    27. Gonzalez-Bayon L,
    28. Gonzalez-Moreno S,
    29. Goodman M,
    30. Gushchin V,
    31. Hanna N,
    32. Hartmann J,
    33. Harrison L,
    34. Hoefer R,
    35. Kane J,
    36. Kecmanovic D,
    37. Kelley S,
    38. Kuhn J,
    39. Lamont J,
    40. Lange J,
    41. Li B,
    42. Loggie B,
    43. Mahteme H,
    44. Mann G,
    45. Martin R,
    46. Misih RA,
    47. Moran B,
    48. Morris D,
    49. Onate-Ocana L,
    50. Petrelli N,
    51. Philippe G,
    52. Pingpank J,
    53. Pitroff A,
    54. Piso P,
    55. Quinones M,
    56. Riley L,
    57. Rutstein L,
    58. Saha S,
    59. Alrawi S,
    60. Sardi A,
    61. Schneebaum S,
    62. Shen P,
    63. Shibata D,
    64. Spellman J,
    65. Stojadinovic A,
    66. Stewart J,
    67. Torres-Melero J,
    68. Tuttle T,
    69. Verwaal V,
    70. Villar J,
    71. Wilkinson N,
    72. Younan R,
    73. Zeh H,
    74. Zoetmulder F,
    75. Sebbag G
    : Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the management of peritoneal surface malignancies of colonic origin: A consensus statement. Society of Surgical Oncology. Ann Surg Oncol 14(1): 128-133, 2007. PMID: 17072675. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-006-9185-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Teo MCC,
    2. Tan GHC
    : Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in gastrointestinal cancers: Fad or standard of care? Singapore Med J 59(3): 116-120, 2018. PMID: 29568842. DOI: 10.11622/smedj.2018025
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Foster JM,
    2. Sleightholm R,
    3. Patel A,
    4. Shostrom V,
    5. Hall B,
    6. Neilsen B,
    7. Bartlett D,
    8. Smith L
    : Morbidity and mortality rates following cytoreductive surgery combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy compared with other high-risk surgical oncology procedures. JAMA Netw Open 2(1): e186847, 2019. PMID: 30646202. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.6847
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Chua TC,
    2. Yan TD,
    3. Saxena A,
    4. Morris DL
    : Should the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis by cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy still be regarded as a highly morbid procedure?: A systematic review of morbidity and mortality. Ann Surg 249(6): 900-907, 2009. PMID: 19474692. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181a45d86
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Moghadamyeghaneh Z,
    2. Hwang GS,
    3. Hanna MH,
    4. Phelan M,
    5. Carmichael JC,
    6. Mills S,
    7. Pigazzi A,
    8. Stamos MJ
    : Risk factors for prolonged ileus following colon surgery. Surg Endosc 30(2): 603-609, 2016. PMID: 26017914. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-015-4247-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Shah SK,
    2. Uray KS,
    3. Stewart RH,
    4. Laine GA,
    5. Cox CS Jr..
    : Resuscitation-induced intestinal edema and related dysfunction: State of the science. J Surg Res 166(1): 120-130, 2011. PMID: 19959186. DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2009.09.010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Kalff JC,
    2. Schraut WH,
    3. Simmons RL,
    4. Bauer AJ
    : Surgical manipulation of the gut elicits an intestinal muscularis inflammatory response resulting in postsurgical ileus. Ann Surg 228(5): 652-63, 1998. PMID: 9833803. DOI: 10.1097/00000658-199811000-00004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Cheng H,
    2. Clymer JW,
    3. Po-Han Chen B,
    4. Sadeghirad B,
    5. Ferko NC,
    6. Cameron CG,
    7. Hinoul P
    : Prolonged operative duration is associated with complications: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Surg Res 229: 134-144, 2018. PMID: 29936980. DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2018.03.022
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research: 40 (5)
Anticancer Research
Vol. 40, Issue 5
May 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Impact of Cytoreductive Surgery and HIPEC on Intraoperative Gastrointestinal Wall Thickness and Patient Outcomes
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
18 + 2 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Impact of Cytoreductive Surgery and HIPEC on Intraoperative Gastrointestinal Wall Thickness and Patient Outcomes
MICHELLE ZHIYUN CHEN, DANIEL L. CHAN, MOHAMMAD S. ALSHAHRANI, KHALED ALTOUKHI, NAYEF ALZAHRANI, DAVID L. MORRIS
Anticancer Research May 2020, 40 (5) 2865-2869; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.14262

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Impact of Cytoreductive Surgery and HIPEC on Intraoperative Gastrointestinal Wall Thickness and Patient Outcomes
MICHELLE ZHIYUN CHEN, DANIEL L. CHAN, MOHAMMAD S. ALSHAHRANI, KHALED ALTOUKHI, NAYEF ALZAHRANI, DAVID L. MORRIS
Anticancer Research May 2020, 40 (5) 2865-2869; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.14262
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Patients and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Assessment of Breakthrough Cancer Pain Among Female Patients With Cancer: Knowledge, Management and Characterization in the IOPS-MS Study
  • Low-dose Apalutamide in Non-metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: A Case Series
  • Bone Toxicity Case Report Combining Encorafenib, Cetuximab and WNT974 in a Phase I Trial
Show more Clinical Studies

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • cytoreductive surgery
  • heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy
  • ileus
  • length of stay
  • small intestine
Anticancer Research

© 2025 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire