An update of peritonectomy procedures used in cytoreductive surgery for peritoneal malignancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Complete cytoreduction is acknowledged to be an effective way to achieve macroscopic tumor clearance for a variety of tumors confined to the peritoneal cavity. Recent trials have shown that surgery respecting anatomical planes results in excellent outcomes and even the chance of cure for some from what was once thought to be life-limiting disease.Objective: To describe peritonectomy procedures in the current era.Method: A thorough and systematic method for cytoreductive surgery aimed at complete surgical resection of peritoneal metastases (PMs) was described.Results: The general principles of cytoreductive surgery were set out including preoperative preparation, patient positioning and incision. Strategies for assessing disease extent and planning surgical steps were outlined and established peritonectomy procedures such as Glisson’s capsulectomy, omentectomy, left and right diaphragmatic peritonectomy, lesser omentectomy, stripping of the omental bursa, and pelvic peritonectomy were described. Novel techniques such as anterior pancreatic peritonectomy, small bowel mesenteric peritonectomy and cardiophrenic lymph node dissection were explained, and illustrated with accompanying video.Conclusion: Peritoneal metastases present a challenge to the surgeon which calls for a unique skill set if optimal outcomes are to be achieved. Attempts to standardize the surgical techniques described will allow further refinement as new technological advances occur.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".