{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02390710382513661, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01366120218579235, 'mean_word_length': 5.845794392523365, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Technical aspects of cytoreductive surgery

At the Fifth International Workshop on Peritoneal Surface Malignancy, in Milan, the consensus on technical aspects of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) for peritoneal surface malignancy was obtained through the Delphi process. Five conflicting points were discussed: radicality of the peritonectomy procedure, cytoreduction of neoplastic nodules <2.5 mm, the timing of bowel anastomoses in relation to hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and indications of protective ostomies. According to the panel of experts a partial parietal peritonectomy restricted to the macroscopically involved regions could be indicated in all listed clinical conditions with the exception of peritoneal mesothelioma. No expert was of the opinion that a radical parietal peritonectomy is advisable irrespective of the disease being treated. All the experts agreed that electrovaporization of small (<2.5 mm) non‐infiltrating metastatic nodules in the mesentery would be appropriate, even if theoretically the HIPEC affords microscopic cytoreduction. The panel also agreed that in the closed technique for HIPEC administration the intestinal anastomoses should be fashioned after completion of the perfusion. Finally when considering the place for protective ostomies the experts voted for a flexible approach allowing the surgeon to exercise discretion for individual patients. J. Surg. Oncol. 2008;98:232–236. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.