Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 20, 2026

Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy for the Treatment of Anastomotic Leakage after Total Gastrectomy with Esophagojejunostomy
Published on: August 22, 2025
Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) might increase the risk of anastomotic leakage compared to
Clément Tavernier1,2, Guillaume Passot1,2, Oliva Vassal3
1Department of Digestive Surgery, Lyon-Sud University Hospital, Lyon, France.
Background:
Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) are technics proposed to treat patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis, in different settings. There is some concern about an over-risk of anastomotic leakage (AL) with PIPAC jeopardizing a combination with cytoreductive surgery. This study used a healthy swine model to compare the postoperative AL rate between PIPAC and HIPEC with digestive resection and to analyze macrocirculation and microcirculation parameters.
Methods:
Segmental colonic resection with a handsewn anastomosis was performed on 16 healthy pigs; 8 pigs had a PIPAC procedure with 7.5 mg/m2 cisplatin (PIPAC group), and 8 pigs had a closed HIPEC procedure with 70 mg/m2 cisplatin and 42 °C as the target intraperitoneal temperature (HIPEC group). Pigs were kept alive for 8 days, then sacrificed and autopsied to look for AL, which was defined as local abscess or digestive fluid leakage when pressure was applied to the anastomosis. Food intake, weight, and core temperature were monitored postoperatively. Macrocirculation (heart rate, systolic blood pressure) and microcirculation parameters (percentage of perfused vessels, perfused vessels density, DeBacker score) were evaluated intraoperatively at five timepoints. Results were compared between pigs with AL and those without.
Results:
The HIPEC group had no AL, but 3 of 8 pigs (37.5%) had AL in the PIPAC group (p = 0.20). Heart rate and core temperature showed perioperative increases in the HIPEC group. Intraoperatively, heart rate was higher in the HIPEC group at the two last timepoints (123 vs. 93 bpm, p = 0.031, and 110 vs. 85 bpm, p = 0.010, at timepoints 3 and 4, respectively). Other macrocirculatory and microcirculatory parameters showed no significant differences.
Conclusion:
In this healthy swine model, PIPAC might have increased AL incidence compared to HIPEC. This potential over-risk did not seem to be related to changes in the microcirculation. PIPAC should probably not be used with digestive resection and should be avoided in cases of perioperative serosal injury.
More Related Videos
08:33Use of Capillary Aerosol Generator in Continuous Production of Controlled Aerosol for Non-Clinical Studies
Published on: April 12, 2022
07:47Experimental Protocol to Investigate Particle Aerosolization of a Product Under Abrasion and Under Environmental Weathering
Published on: September 16, 2016
Related Concept Videos
Comparing Experimental Results: Student's t-Test
Relative Risk
Vapor Pressure
Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Cannabinoids
Two synthetic agonists of THC,...
Increased Body Temperature
Increased pulse rate
Many factors can elevate the risk of developing tachycardia. These include advanced age, a family history of arrhythmias, and an...