ArticleSaudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association
A retrospective study of two-port appendectomy and its comparison with open appendectomy and three-port appendectomy.
Article in Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Two-trocar appendectomy in children - description of technique and comparison with conventional laparoscopic appendectomy.BMC surgery · 2016Article
- Conventional Laparoscopic Appendicectomy and Laparoscope-Assisted Appendicectomy: a Comparative Study.The Indian journal of surgery · 2015Article
- One, two or three port appendectomy - a rational approach.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2013Article
- Two-port vs. three-port laparoscopic appendicectomy: A bridge to least invasive surgery.Journal of minimal access surgery · 2012Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsTo establish the efficacy of two-port appendectomy as an alternative to standard laparoscopic and open appendectomy in the management of acute appendicitis. MATERIALS AND
methodsOf the 151 patients included in the study, 47 patients were in the open group, 61 in two-port and 43 patients were included in the three-port group. Only patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis were included in the study. Patients with complicated appendicitis like perforated appendix, appendicular lump and appendicular abscess were excluded from the study. Patients converted to open procedure after initial diagnosis and patients with other pathology in addition to appendicitis were also excluded. Patients with recurrent appendicitis and chronic appendicitis were excluded. The total number of excluded cases was 50. Data were compared with cases of open and three-port appendectomy.
resultsThe mean operative time was 43.94, 35.74, and 59.65 min (SD: 18.91, 11.06, 19.29) for open, two-port, and three-port appendectomy groups respectively. Mean length of stay in days was 3.02, 1.93, and 2.26 (SD: 1.27, 1.04, 1.09) for open, two-port, and three-port appendectomy groups respectively. Surgical site infection was significantly lower (P = 0.03) in laparoscopy group as compared to that in open appendectomy group. Seven patients (4.63%) developed surgical site infection, 5 (10.63%) in the open and 2 (1.92%) in the laparoscopy group. Surgical site infection was 1.63% and 2.32% in two-port and three-port appendectomy groups respectively.
conclusionsFor uncomplicated appendicitis, the two-port appendectomy technique significantly reduces operative time as well as length of hospital stay. It also reduces surgical site infection as compared to open appendectomy group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.