ArticleJournal of the Korean Surgical Society2012
A comparison of the periumbilical incision and the intraumbilical incision in laparoscopic appendectomy.
Article in Journal of the Korean Surgical Society, 2012. 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative analysis of surgical site infection rates between transumbilical and periumbilical incisions in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Trial
- Transumbilical laparoscopy for pneumoperitoneum establishment: a comprehensive multicentre evaluation affirming safety, feasibility, and a range of clinical benefits.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- Gasless transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy as a safe and cost-effective alternative surgical procedure for mild acute appendicitis.Surgery today · 2016Article
- Feasibility of the short hospital stays after laparoscopic appendectomy for uncomplicated appendicitis.Yonsei medical journal · 2014Article
- A comparison of transumbilical single-port laparoscopic appendectomy and conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy: from the diagnosis to the hospital cost.Journal of the Korean Surgical Society · 2013Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe intraumbilical incision is being used more frequently, with increasing cases of single incision laparoscopic surgery. Since the umbilicus is deeper than the surrounding wall, it has abundant bacteria. No study has compared the adverse outcomes of periumbilical and intraumbilical incisions. We analyzed the wound complication rates of perforated appendicitis patients according to the types of umbilical incision.
methodsA retrospective review was done of 280 patients with perforated appendicitis. One hundred fifty nine patients were treated with the intraumbilical incision, and 121 patients were treated with the periumbilical incision. We compared the perioperative outcomes according to each laparoscopic incision.
resultsThere was no difference in operation time, postoperative hospital stay and analgesic requirement between the two groups. One case in the intraumbilical group (0.6%) and three cases in the periumbilical group (2.5%) developed wound infections. The umbilical complication rate showed no difference.
conclusionThe wound complication rate of intraumbilical and periumbilical incisions are not different. Although this retrospective study has inherent limitations, the intraumbilical incision seems to be a safe and feasible alternative for the periumbilical incision that can be easier to perform, with better cosmetic results.
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.