Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22991328›Full record

ArticleUpdates in surgery2012

Lesson learned from 10 years' experience in laparoscopic appendectomy in a community hospital.

Nereo Vettoretto, Giulia Montori, Michele Bartoli, Maurizio Giovanetti

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Updates in surgery, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Utility of the laparoscopic approach to surgical treatment of acute appendicitis in a single surgical unit.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2014
    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

4 authors.

Nereo VettorettoLaparoscopic Surgical Unit, M. Mellini Hospital, V. le Mazzini 4, 25032, Chiari, BS, Italy. nereovet@gmail.com
Giulia Montori
Michele Bartoli
Maurizio Giovanetti

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The debate between open and laparoscopic appendectomy is now overtook by the need of a standardized technique, as laparoscopy, in the elective and emergency setting, is widely disseminated thorough surgical practices. A retrospective review of a 10 years' case history (838 laparoscopic appendectomies) is analyzed, and the last 5 years experience (300 cases) compared to the previous experience after the adoption of a standardized technique, which comprehends an all-comers policy without patients' selection prior to explorative laparoscopy. No post-operative infections have been recorded, neither intra-abdominal abscesses nor wound infections, in the laparoscopic group. Significant differences (p < 0.05) have been found between the rate of peritonitis and male sex, elderly patients, and the use of stapler for the treatment of the appendiceal stump. Also conversion to laparotomy has been associated with complicated appendicitis, while associated diseases are found more frequently in fertile women. No differences in the operating time have been evidenced between laparoscopic, open or converted appendectomy. We sustain that every patient with a suspect of appendicitis should have a laparoscopic chance, indeed maintaining a low threshold for conversion; and that surgical indication should be anticipated for male and elderly patients, in order to lower the rate of complicated appendicitis.

Indexed as

Acute DiseaseAdolescentAdultAgedAppendectomyAppendicitisFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHospitals, CommunityHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTime FactorsTreatment Outcome

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.