Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19517167›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2010

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a prospective randomized comparison.

Hong-Bo Wei, Jiang-Long Huang, Zong-Heng Zheng, Bo Wei, Feng Zheng, Wan-Shou Qiu, Wei-Ping Guo, Tu-Feng Chen, Tian-Bao Wang

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 8 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.

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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  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. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. LAPAROSCOPIC APPENDICECTOMY: RISK FACTORS FOR CONVERSION TO LAPAROTOMY.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2023
    Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

9 authors.

Hong-Bo WeiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, GuangZhou, China. drwhb@21cn.com
Jiang-Long Huang
Zong-Heng Zheng
Bo Wei
Feng Zheng
Wan-Shou Qiu
Wei-Ping Guo
Tu-Feng Chen
Tian-Bao Wang

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhether laparoscopy offers a benefit over open surgery in the management of acute appendicitis or not remains a subject of controversy despite the publication of numerous randomized studies. This study aimed to compare laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) with open appendectomy (OA) and to ascertain its therapeutic benefit.

methodsAdult patients older than 14 years presenting with signs and symptoms suggestive of acute appendicitis were randomized to undergo either LA or OA from January 2006 to December 2007. Comparisons were based on operating time, time until return to a general diet, time until return to normal activity and work, length of hospital stay, billed charges, and postoperative complications.

resultsThe study enrolled 220 patients: 108 to undergo OA and 112 to undergo LA. The groups were similar in terms of clinicopathologic characteristics. The operating time seemed to be shorter for the OA patients than for the LA patients, but the difference was not significant (LA, 30 +/- 15.2 min vs. OA, 28.7 +/- 16.3 min; p > 0.05). The hospital stay of 4.1 +/- 1.5 days for the LA group and 7.2 +/- 1.7 days for the OA group, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Laparoscopic appendectomy remained associated with a shorter time until return to a general diet (LA, 20.2 +/- 12.4 h vs. OA, 36.5 +/- 10 h; p < 0.05), to normal activity (LA, 9.1 +/- 4.2 days vs. OA, 13.7 +/- 5.8 days; p < 0.05), and to work (LA, 21.2 +/- 3.5 days vs. OA, 27.7 +/- 4.9 days; p < 0.05). The billed charges appeared to be higher for LA (LA, 5,720.3 +/- 115.7 yuan vs. OA, 5,310 +/- 575.4 yuan), but this difference failed to be clinically important or statistically significant (p > 0.05). Wound infections were more common after OA (n = 14) than after LA (n = 0) (p < 0.05). Intraabdominal abscesses occurred for two patients in the LA group and nine patients in the OA group (p < 0.05). Postoperative ileus occurred with frequencies of 0% in the LA group and 7.4% in the OA group (p < 0.05). The rate for overall complications was significantly lower in the LA group.

conclusionLaparoscopic appendectomy is a useful tool in the treatment of acute appendicitis. Its advantages lie in its minimal invasiveness, its better cosmetic outcome, its lower rate of complications based on surgical expertise and state-of-the-art equipment. It can be recommended as an adoptable method for the routine patient with appendicitis.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyLaparotomyAdolescentAdultAgedAppendectomyAppendicitisFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesRecovery of FunctionSurgical Wound Infection

Identifiers

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.