ArticleUpdates in surgery2012
Lesson learned from 10 years' experience in laparoscopic appendectomy in a community hospital.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Laparoscopic appendectomy: Hem-o-lok versus Endoloop in stump closure.Updates in surgery · 2017Article
- 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 · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
22991328What 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.