SynthesisJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2014
Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 6 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Single-incision versus conventional multi-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy for suspected uncomplicated appendicitis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Single-incision versus conventional multi-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy for suspected uncomplicated appendicitis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Interventions to optimize recovery after laparoscopic appendectomy: a scoping review.Surgical endoscopy · 2017Pooled it
- 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
- Appendicitis-Like Picture Induced by Foreign Body in a 2-Year-Old Boy.Case reports in surgery · 2020Article
- Bayesian network meta-analysis of the effects of single-incision laparoscopic surgery, conventional laparoscopic appendectomy and open appendectomy for the treatment of acute appendicitis.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2017Article
- The present status and developments of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2017Review
- Single-Incision Laparoscopic Appendectomy by Surgical Trainees.Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques · 2016Article
- Present laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in Japan.World journal of clinical oncology · 2016Article
- Advances in laparoscopy for acute care surgery and trauma.World journal of gastroenterology · 2016Review
- The learning curve of single-port laparoscopic appendectomy performed by emergent operation.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2016Article
- 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSingle-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) has gained enormous popularity worldwide. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess feasibility, safety, and benefits of SILA as compared with conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA).
methodsA literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library was performed to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Primary outcome measures were total postoperative complications, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, and ileus. Secondary outcome measures were operative time, length of hospital stay, pain scores, conversion rate, reoperation rate, and time to return to normal activity.
resultsEight RCTs, totaling 1,211 patients (604 for SILA and 607 for CLA), met the inclusion criteria. The incidences of total postoperative complications, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, and ileus were statistically similar between the SILA and CLA groups. Compared with CLA, SILA was associated with a significantly longer operative time (weighted mean difference = 5.28 min; 95 % confidence interval = 3.61 to 6.94). Time to return to normal activity was shorter in the SILA group (by 0.69 days). Length of hospital stay, pain scores, conversion rate, and reoperation rate were similar between groups.
conclusionSILA is feasible and safe with no obvious advantages over CLA. Therefore, it may be considered as an alternative to CLA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24002764What 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.