Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24091177›Full record

ArticleIl Giornale di chirurgia

Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy is comparable to conventional laparoscopic and laparotomic appendectomy: our single center single surgeon experience.

F Ceci, S Orsini, A Tudisco, M Avallone, F Aiuti, V Di Girolamo, F Stefanelli, F De Angelis, A Martellucci, A Costantino and 9 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Il Giornale di chirurgia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
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

19 authors.

F Ceci
S Orsini
A Tudisco
M Avallone
F Aiuti
V Di Girolamo
F Stefanelli
F De Angelis
A Martellucci
A Costantino
C Di Grazia
S Nicodemi
B Cipriani
A Napoleoni
R Mosillo
S Corelli
G Casciaro
E Spaziani
F Stagnitti

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several studies have demonstrated the clinical and technical benefits of the laparoscopic surgery for complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis. Our retrospective study included 12 patient who underwent SILS appendectomy (SILS-A), 14 who received conventional laparoscopic surgery (VL-A), and 12 who received laparotomic appendectomy (OA); performed in all cases by the same surgeon (C.F.). The aim of this study was the comparison between this three different surgical techniques on same features: post operative leukocytosis, post operative pain, need abdominal drainage, esthetic viewpoint, incidence of complication, hospital stay. The results showed no significant differences between SILS-A and VLS-A, while an evident improvement shows versus O-A, even though not statistically significative. SILS was more effective in decreasing the risk of postoperative wound infection.

Indexed as

LaparotomyAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAppendectomyFemaleHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID24091177
PMCPMC3915604

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.