ArticleJournal of surgical case reports2026
Repeated PIPAC in advanced peritoneal metastases: technical feasibility in a real-world case series.
Article in Journal of surgical case reports, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is increasingly used for unresectable peritoneal metastases, although repeated laparoscopic access in patients with diffuse carcinomatosis may be technically challenging. We report our institutional experience with repeated PIPAC procedures, focusing on technical feasibility and reproducibility. Between December 2024 and December 2025, 24 PIPAC procedures were performed in 10 patients with ovarian and gastrointestinal malignancies. Despite hostile abdomens, intra-abdominal adhesions, and extensive peritoneal disease, all procedures were successfully completed laparoscopically without conversion to open surgery or major postoperative complications. Trocar positioning, selective cold-scissor adhesiolysis, reuse of previous access sites, and individualized CapnoPen® orientation contributed to maintaining procedural feasibility throughout repeated treatment cycles. Treatment interruption was mainly related to disease progression and deterioration of general clinical conditions rather than technical failure. Our experience suggests that repeated PIPAC is technically feasible and reproducible even in patients with advanced peritoneal carcinomatosis when careful surgical planning and tailored laparoscopic strategies are adopted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.