ArticleCanadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie2008
Recent experience with laparoscopic appendectomy in a Canadian teaching centre.
Article in Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Suprapubic approach for laparoscopic appendectomy.Journal of natural science, biology, and medicine · 2013Article
- Laparoscopic appendectomy as a teaching procedure: experiences with 1,197 patients in a community hospital.Surgery today · 2012Article
- Cost-effectiveness of open versus laparoscopic appendectomy: a multilevel approach with propensity score matching.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2012Article
- Laparoscopic appendectomy performed by residents and experienced surgeons.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveLaparoscopic appendectomy (LA) remains controversial in our city, in part because of results obtained early in the learning curve. In 1995, our centre reported that LA took 30 minutes longer and yet resulted in similar length of hospital stay, compared with open appendectomy (OA). The purpose of the current study is to reexamine LA now that more experience has been gained with the procedure and to document the learning curve at a typical Canadian teaching centre.
methodsWe undertook a retrospective chart review of patients undergoing nonelective appendectomy between January 2001 and June 2004; this yielded 201 charts that satisfied the inclusion criteria. The 201 cases were divided into 3 groups, each consisting of 67 consecutive cases, to allow for comparison between early, middle and late experience. The main outcomes of interest were operative time, length of stay and the changes over time that occurred in these 2 measures. An intent-to-treat analysis was performed.
resultsThe mean operative time differed by only minutes: 54.9 (standard error of mean [SEM] 1.9) minutes for LA and 48.8 (SEM 1.4) minutes for OA (p = 0.004). Length of stay was 1.3 (SEM 0.1) days and 2.9 (SEM 0.2) days for LA and OA groups, respectively (p 0.0001). Analysis of the 3 time periods (early, middle and late) revealed significant improvements in operative time and length of stay for LA in the middle, compared with the early, time periods.
conclusionThese data suggest that, with experience, LA operative time approaches that of OA and length of stay decreases. A shortened hospital stay and similar operative time, along with educational advantages, support the use of the LA in teaching centres.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18248706PMC2386304What OpenQuestion holds
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.