ArticleJournal of the Korean Society of Coloproctology2012
Comparative study of a single-incision laparoscopic and a conventional laparoscopic appendectomy for the treatment of acute appendicitis.
Article in Journal of the Korean Society of Coloproctology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Guideline
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing single incision versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy.World journal of surgery · 2014Pooled it
- Gasless transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy as a safe and cost-effective alternative surgical procedure for mild acute appendicitis.Surgery today · 2016Article
- Two-port laparoscopic appendectomy with the help of a needle grasper: better cosmetic results and fewer trocars than conventional laparoscopic appendectomy.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2016Article
- Incidence of minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery at National Comprehensive Cancer Network centers.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2015Article
- Overview of single-port laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancers: past, present, and the future.World journal of gastroenterology · 2014Review
- Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy.Journal of the Korean Society of Coloproctology · 2012Article
- Is Transumbilical Laparoscopic-assisted Appendectomy Better than Laparoscopic Appendectomy in Children? A Randomized Controlled Study.Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeFor the treatment of acute appendicitis, a conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has been widely performed. Recently, the use of single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is increasing because it is believed to have advantages over conventional laparoscopic surgery. In this study, we compared SILS and a conventional LA.
methodsWe analyzed the 217 patients who received laparoscopy-assisted appendectomies between August 2010 and April 2012 at Inje University Sanggye Paik Hospital. One hundred-twelve patients underwent SILS, and 105 patients underwent LA. For the two groups, we compared the operation times, postoperative laboratory results, postoperative pain, hospital stay, and postoperative complications.
resultsThe patients' demographics, including body mass index, were not significantly different between the two groups. There were 6 perforated appendicitis cases in the SILS group and 5 cases in the LA group. The mean operative time in the SILS group was 65.88 ± 22.74 minutes whereas that in the LA group was 61.70 ± 22.27 minutes (P = 0.276). There were no significant differences in the mean hospital stays, use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, and wound infections between the two groups.
conclusionPostoperative pain, complications and hospital stay showed no statistically significant differences between the SILS and the LA groups. However, our SILS method uses a single trocar and two latex tubes, so cost savings and reduced interference during surgery are expected.
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.