Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17036247›Full record

ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2006

[Relaparoscopy as an alternative to laparotomy for laparoscopic complications].

I Leister, H Becker

Open access · greenAbstract readCase ReportsEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 38% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Acute appendicitis: what is the gold standard of treatment?World journal of gastroenterology · 2013
    Review
  3. Article
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

I LeisterKlinik für Allgemeinchirurgie, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Strasse 40, 37075 Göttingen, Deutschland. ILeiste@chirurgie-goettingen.de
H Becker
University of Göttingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the field of visceral surgery, complications requiring reintervention following laparoscopy are currently most likely to be approached with conventional laparotomy. However, relaparoscopy has the theoretical advantage of maintaining the reduced morbidity allowed by the first procedure. Essential to the success of relaparoscopy is a clear understanding of the various specific complications. Should the surgeon decide on relaparoscopy, then prompt action is of central importance. Following laparoscopic cholecystectomy, it is fundamentally technically possible through renewed laparoscopy to treat not only subhepatic abscesses but also smaller lesions of the bile duct, for example from the gall bladder fossa. Revision of complications following fundoplication is technically very demanding and should be performed only by those most experienced in the techniques of laparoscopy. In contrast to interventional drainage, relaparoscopy of abscesses following laparoscopic appendectomy has the theoretical advantage of allowing recognition and treatment of the causes, for example in the case of appendicular stump insufficiency. Relapses very shortly after endoscopic surgery of inguinal herniae result from erroneous technique and may be corrected endoscopically in most cases. Complications following colon surgery have so far been dealt with using open surgery for technical reasons and also for patient safety. Given the uncertainty in the literature, patient safety must be paramount, when deciding on which technique is best to employ, particularly in cases of haemorrhage.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyAdultAppendectomyBile Ducts, ExtrahepaticCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicFundoplicationGallstonesHernia, InguinalHumansLiver AbscessMalePostoperative ComplicationsReoperationRisk FactorsSphincterotomy, Endoscopic

Identifiers

PMID17036247
OpenAlexW115773136

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.