ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2009
[Laparoscopic appendectomy. The new standard?].
Review in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Economic impact of disposable versus reusable instruments in minimally invasive surgery: a systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- Closure of the appendiceal stump in laparoscopic appendectomy: A systematic review of the literature.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2020Review
- [Perioperative CRP quantification for appendectomy: Clinically useful or a waste of money?].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2015Article
- [Stump closure in laparoscopic appendectomy. Influence of endoloop or linear stapler on patient outcome].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2014Article
- Appendix stump closure with titanium clips in laparoscopic appendectomy.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2012Article
- Increased complication rate in obese patients undergoing laparoscopic adrenalectomy.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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the introduction of laparoscopic appendectomy by Semm in 1983, the role of this minimally invasive surgical technique has been the focus of controversial discussion. Meta-analyses have identified its advantages as having significantly lower wound infection rates, less postoperative pain and earlier resumption of normal everyday activities. The disadvantages are higher rates of intra-abdominal abscesses, longer operating times and higher inpatient treatment costs. However, some of the advantages identified by meta-analyses have been called into question by the results obtained from research into aspects of care. These discrepancies are attributable to the different surgeons involved in the various studies. The results are greatly influenced by the qualifications and experience of the surgeons. Therefore conventional appendectomy using a right lower lateral McBurney incision should continue to be the gold standard. Surgeons who have extensive experience in the field of laparoscopic surgery can achieve better results with minimally invasive appendectomy than with open surgery. This also holds true for specific situations such as complicated appendicitis and for morbidly obese patients. However, the operating costs incurred for laparoscopic appendectomy are higher because it has been shown that removal of the appendix with a linear stapler is the most reliable method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19455285What 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.