Trial reportSaudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association
Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a comparison of primary outcome measures.
Trial report 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 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Laparoscopy for the management of acute lower abdominal pain in women of childbearing age.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- 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 · 2012Pooled it
- Review
- Laparoscopic versus Open Appendectomy: A Prospective Comparative Study and 4-Year Experience in a Tertiary Care Hospital.Surgery journal (New York, N.Y.) · 2022Article
- Feasibility, acceptance, safety, and effectiveness of antibiotic therapy as alternative treatment approach to appendectomy in uncomplicated acute appendicitis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2019Observational
- Mini-Incision Open Appendectomy with Incision Skin Tissue Retractor vs. Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A Retrospective Study of the Management of Child Acute Appendicitis.Advances in therapy · 2018Article
- Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in adults and children: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.United European gastroenterology journal · 2017Article
- Hyperbilirubinaemia in appendicitis: the diagnostic value for prediction of appendicitis and appendiceal perforation.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2016Article
- Gasless transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy as a safe and cost-effective alternative surgical procedure for mild acute appendicitis.Surgery today · 2016Article
- Laparoscopic vs mini-incision open appendectomy.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2015Article
- Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology AssociationArticle
- Primary outcome in a randomized controlled trial: a critical issue.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology AssociationArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimThe aim of the study was to compare laparoscopic and open appendectomy (OA) in terms of primary outcome measures. STUDY
designA randomized controlled trial. Place and duration of the study: Khyber Teaching Hospital, Peshawar, Pakistan, February 2008 to December 2009. PATIENTS AND
methodsA total of 160 patients were divided into two groups, A and B. Group A patients were subjected to laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), whereas Group B patients were subjected to OA. Data regarding age, gender, and primary outcome measures, such as hospital stay, operative duration, and postoperative complication, were recorded and analyzed. Percentages were calculated for categorical data, whereas numerical data were represented as mean ± SD. Chi-square test and t test were used to compare categorical and numerical variables, respectively. Probability ≤ 0.05 (P ≤ 0.05) was considered significant.
resultsAfter randomization, 72 patients in group A and 75 patients in group B were analyzed. The mean age of patients in groups A and B was 23.09 ± 8.51 and 23.12 ± 10.42 years, respectively, (P = 0.981). The mean hospital stay was 1.52 ± 0.76 days in group A and 1.70 ± 1.06 days in group B (P = 0.294). The mean operative duration in group A and B were 47.54 ± 12.82 min and 31.36 ± 11.43 min, respectively (P < 0.001). Pain (overall level) was significantly less in group A compared with group B (P = 0.004). The two groups were comparable in terms of other postoperative complications, such as hematoma (P = 0.87), paralytic ileus (P = 0.086), urinary retention (P = 0.504), and wound infection (P = 0.134).
conclusionLA is an equivalent procedure and not superior to OA in terms of primary outcome measures.
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.