Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23239295›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2013

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery in children: a randomized control trial of acute appendicitis.

Eduardo A Perez, Hannah Piper, Lorrie S Burkhalter, Anne C Fischer

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 19 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 19 pooled it
–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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 19 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Laparoscopic entry techniques.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2014
    Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Trial
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.

Eduardo A PerezDivision of Pediatric Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, PO Box 016960, Miami, FL 33101, USA.
Hannah Piper
Lorrie S Burkhalter
Anne C Fischer

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSingle-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a novel area of minimally invasive surgery that uses a single incision to minimize all ports to one site. The end result is an incision that can be strategically placed in the umbilicus for a perceived scarless abdomen. The authors rationalized that a randomized controlled trial was important given the rapid popularization of this approach.

methodsAn institutional review board-approved prospective randomized trial compared patients undergoing SILS (SILS-A) and conventional laparoscopic (LAP-A) appendectomy at a free-standing children's hospital during a median follow-up period of 2.2 years.

resultsA total of 50 patients (50 % boys and 67 % Hispanics) were randomized equally to SILS-A and LAP-A. The patients ranged in age from 3 to 15 years without a difference between the two groups. Half (50 %) of these patients were younger than 8 years. The technique for SILS-A involved a single supraumbilical curvilinear skin incision with three fascial incisions. Ports were inserted to varying depths to minimize restriction of instrument movement. Coaxial visualization was improved by the use of a 30° scope. To achieve technical comparability with the LAP-A, a stapler device was used, which required upsizing a 5 mm port to a 12 mm port. The mean duration of the operation was 46.8 ± 3.7 min (range, 22-120 min) compared with 34.8 ± 2.5 min (range, 18-77 min) for standard LAP-A (p = 0.010). No conversions occurred, and the two groups did not differ in hospital length of stay. The postoperative complications consisted of one wound seroma in the SILS-A group (nonsignificant difference), and no hernias were seen. No difference in readmissions, diet tolerance, fever, or postoperative pain was noted between the two groups.

conclusionsThe findings show the SILS approach to be feasible in the pediatric population despite the limited abdominal domain in younger children. Although SILS operating room times currently are longer than for LAP-A, they are comparable, and no other outcomes differed appreciably between the two techniques at the time of hospitalization or during the follow-up period.

Indexed as

AdolescentAppendicitisChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansLaparoscopyMaleProspective Studies

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.