Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16135930›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of surgery2005

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind study.

Namir Katkhouda, Rodney J Mason, Shirin Towfigh, Anna Gevorgyan, Rahila Essani

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical TrialComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of surgery, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03080103 (A Prospective Non-randomized Controlled, Multicenter, Multidisciplinary Trial Comparing Appendectomy and Conservative Treatment for Patients With Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis), which is not on this map. Cited by 112 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
112citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03080103 completednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

A Prospective Non-randomized Controlled, Multicenter, Multidisciplinary Trial Comparing Appendectomy and Conservative Treatment for Patients With Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis (the ACTUAA STUDY).

TypeobservationalSponsorMauro PoddaRan2017 to 2019Enrolled300ConditionsAcute Appendicitis, Appendicitis Recurrent, Appendectomy, Antibiotic TherapyArmsLaparoscopic or Open appendectomy, Antibiotic-first therapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

112 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Aspiration versus peritoneal lavage in appendicitis: a meta-analysis.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Meta-analysis of the results of randomized controlled trials that compared laparoscopic and open surgery for acute appendicitis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2012
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Guideline
  10. Appendicitis.BMJ clinical evidence · 2007
    Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a comparison of primary outcome measures.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association
    Trial
  19. Safety and Efficacy of Polymeric Clips for Appendiceal Stump Closure.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Trial
  20. Appendicitis.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2025
    Review

52 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Namir KatkhoudaDivision of Emergency Non-Trauma Surgery, University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA. Nkatkhouda@surgery.usc.edu
Rodney J Mason
Shirin Towfigh
Anna Gevorgyan
Rahila Essani

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

summary background dataThe value of laparoscopy in appendicitis is not established. Studies suffer from multiple limitations. Our aim is to compare the safety and benefits of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in a prospective randomized double blind study.

methodsTwo hundred forty-seven patients were analyzed following either laparoscopic or open appendectomy. A standardized wound dressing was applied blinding both patients and independent data collectors. Surgical technique was standardized among 4 surgeons. The main outcome measures were postoperative complications. Secondary outcome measures included evaluation of pain and activity scores at base line preoperatively and on every postoperative day, as well as resumption of diet and length of stay. Activity scores and quality of life were assessed on short-term follow-up.

resultsThere was no mortality. The overall complication rate was similar in both groups (18.5% versus 17% in the laparoscopic and open groups respectively), but some early complications in the laparoscopic group required a reoperation. Operating time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (80 minutes versus 60 minutes; P = 0.000) while there was no difference in the pain scores and medications, resumption of diet, length of stay, or activity scores. At 2 weeks, there was no difference in the activity or pain scores, but physical health and general scores on the short-form 36 (SF36) quality of life assessment forms were significantly better in the laparoscopic group. Appendectomy for acute or complicated (perforated and gangrenous) appendicitis had similar complication rates, regardless of the technique (P = 0.181).

conclusionsUnlike other minimally invasive procedures, laparoscopic appendectomy did not offer a significant advantage over open appendectomy in all studied parameters except quality of life scores at 2 weeks. It also took longer to perform. The choice of the procedure should be based on surgeon or patient preference.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAppendectomyAppendicitisDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID16135930
PMCPMC1357752

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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 OpenQuestion graph.