SynthesisWorld journal of gastroenterology2013
Safety and efficacy of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for appendectomies: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in World journal of gastroenterology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 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
- Pooled it
- Single-incision versus three-port laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Surgical endoscopy · 2015Pooled it
- Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques in the Treatment of Appendicitis: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Single-Port Laparoscopy Compared with Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Minimally invasive gastrointestinal surgery: From past to the future.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2021Review
- Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy is a safe procedure for beginners to perform: experience from 1948 cases.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Single Incision Laparoscopic Assisted Appendectomy: Experience of 82 Cases.Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2016Article
- Gasless transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy as a safe and cost-effective alternative surgical procedure for mild acute appendicitis.Surgery today · 2016Article
- Laparoscopic surgery: A qualified systematic review.World journal of methodology · 2015Article
- Single port laparoscopy in gastroenterology and hepatology: a fine step forward.World journal of gastroenterology · 2014Review
- Current advances in single-port laparoscopic surgery.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2013Review
- Conventional single-port laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis in children: Efficient and cost-effective.Journal of minimal access surgeryArticle
- Single-Port and Conventional Laparoscopic Appendectomy in Children with Acute Appendicitis.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare single incision laparoscopic surgery for an appendectomy (SILS-A) with conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (C-LA) when implemented by experienced surgeons.
methodsStudies and relevant literature regarding the performance of single-incision laparoscopic surgery vs conventional laparoscopic surgery for appendectomy were searched for in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and World Health Organization international trial register. The operation time (OR time), complications, wound infection and postoperative day using SILS-A or C-LA were pooled and compared using a meta-analysis. The risk ratios and mean differences were calculated with 95%CIs to evaluate the effect of SILS-A.
resultsSixteen recent studies including 1624 patients were included in this meta-analysis. These studies demonstrated that, compared with C-LA, SILS-A has a similar OR time in adults but needs a longer OR time in children. SILS-A has similar complications, wound infection and length of the postoperative day in adults and children, and required similar doses of narcotics in children, the pooled mean different of -0.14 [95%CI: -2.73-(-2.45), P > 0.05], the pooled mean different of 11.47 (95%CI: 10.84-12.09, P < 0.001), a pooled RR of 1.15 (95%CI: 0.72-1.83, P > 0.05), a pooled RR of 1.9 (95%CI: 0.92-3.91, P > 0.05), a pooled RR of 1.01 (95%CI: 0.51-2.0, P > 0.05) a pooled RR of 1.86 (95%CI: 0.77-4.48, P > 0.05), the pooled mean different of -0.25 (95%CI: -0.50-0, P = 0.05) the pooled mean different of -0.01 (95%CI: -0.05-0.04, P > 0.05) the pooled mean different of -0.13 (95%CI: -0.49-0.23, P > 0.05) respectively.
conclusionSILS-A is a technically feasible and reliable approach with short-term results similar to those obtained with the C-LA procedure.
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.