Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Objectives. Compare the surgical morbidity of diaphragmatic peritonectomy versus full thickness diaphragmatic resection with pleurectomy at radical debulking.Design. Prospective cohort study at the Oxford University Hospital.Methods. All debulking with diaphragmatic peritonectomy and/or full thickness resection with pleurectomy in the period from April 2009 to March 2012 were part of the study. Analysis is focused on the intra- and postoperative morbidity.Results. 42 patients were eligible for the study, 21 underwent diaphragmatic peritonectomy (DP, group 1) and 21 diaphragmatic full thickness resection (DR, group 2). Forty patients out of 42 (93%) had complete tumour resection with no residual disease. Histology confirmed the presence of cancer in diaphragmatic peritoneum of 19 patients out of 21 in group 1 and all 21 patients of group 2. Overall complications rate was 19% in group 1 versus 33% in group 2. Pleural effusion rate was 9.5% versus 14.5% and pneumothorax rate was 14.5% only in group 2. Two patients in each group required postoperative chest drains (9.5%).Conclusions. Diaphragmatic surgery is an effective methods to treat carcinomatosis of the diaphragm. Patients in the pleurectomy group experienced pneumothorax and a higher rate of pleural effusion, but none had long-term morbidity or additional surgical interventions.

Original publication




Journal article


International Journal of Surgical Oncology


Hindawi Limited

Publication Date





1 - 6