SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2013
Comparison between single-incision and conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy: a meta-analysis from eight RCTs.
Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Methodological overview of systematic reviews to establish the evidence base for emergency general surgery.The British journal of surgery · 2017Pooled it
- Diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis. EAES consensus development conference 2015.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Guideline
- Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy versus conventional 3-port laparoscopic appendectomy for appendicitis: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Surgery today · 2015Pooled it
- Single-incision versus three-port laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Surgical endoscopy · 2015Pooled it
- Surgical Site Infection Following Single-Port Appendectomy: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Review
- Dual-Incision Laparoscopic Spleen-Preserving Distal Pancreatectomy: Merits Compared to the Conventional Method.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2019Article
- Single-Incision Laparoscopic Appendectomy by Surgical Trainees.Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques · 2016Article
- Two-trocar appendectomy in children - description of technique and comparison with conventional laparoscopic appendectomy.BMC surgery · 2016Article
- Gasless transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy as a safe and cost-effective alternative surgical procedure for mild acute appendicitis.Surgery today · 2016Article
- Single port laparoscopy in gastroenterology and hepatology: a fine step forward.World journal of gastroenterology · 2014Review
- Efficacy and safety of a new single-port model for appendectomy: Experimental study on swine.Journal of minimal access surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the efficacy and safety of single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA), we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy (CTLA).
methodsRCTs comparing the effects of SILA and CTLA were searched for in PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase. Operative time, the pain visual analogue scales scores (VAS scores), dose of analgesics, postoperative complications, hospital charges, and duration of postoperative hospitalization in SILA and CTLA were pooled and compared by meta-analysis. Odds ratios and weighted mean differences (WMDs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to evaluate the effect of SILA.
resultEight original RCTs investigating 760 adults and 684 children, 1,444 patients in total, of whom 721 received SILA only and 723 received CTLA only, met the inclusion criteria. Both in adults and children, the mean operative time was significantly longer in SILA than CTLA (WMD5.45, 95% CI 2.15 to 8.75, p = 0.01). Compared with CTLA, in children, SILA have higher analgesic consumption (WMD 0.69, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.3, p = 0.03) and greater hospital charges (WMD 0.87, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.48, p = 0.005), which was not statistically different in adults (p > 0.05). Pooling the results for SILA and CTLA revealed no significant difference in VAS scores, wound infection rate, overall complications, and postoperative hospital stay.
conclusionSILA failed to show any obvious advantages over CTLA in perioperative and postoperative outcomes. Therefore, it represents a possible alternative to conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy.
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.