Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24869622›Full record

ArticleCanadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie2014

Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy in 688 patients: a retrospective comparative analysis.

Hung-Hua Liang, Chin-Sheng Hung, Weu Wang, Ka-Wai Tam, Chun-Chao Chang, Hui-Hsiung Liu, Ko-Li Yen, Po-Li Wei

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hung-Hua LiangThe Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chin-Sheng HungThe Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Weu WangThe Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Ka-Wai TamThe Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chun-Chao ChangThe Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Hui-Hsiung LiuThe Graduate Institute of Public Health, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Ko-Li YenThe Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Po-Li WeiThe Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Taipei Medical University · TWTaipei Medical University Hospital · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopic surgery has become the standard for treating appendicitis. The cosmetic benefits of using single-incision laparoscopy are well known, but its duration, complications and time to recovery have not been well documented. We compared 2 laparoscopic approaches for treating appendicitis and evaluated postoperative pain, complications and time to full recovery.

methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the cases of consecutive patients with appendicitis and compared those who underwent conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) performed using 3 incisions and those who underwent single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA). During SILA, the single port was prepared to increase visibility of the operative site.

resultsOur analysis included 688 consecutive patients: 618 who underwent CLA and 70 who underwent SILA. Postsurgical complications occurred more frequently in the CLA than the SILA group (18.1% v. 7.1%, p = 0.018). Patients who underwent SILA returned to oral feeding sooner than those who underwent CLA (median 12 h v. 22 h, p < 0.001). These between-group differences remained significant after controlling for other factors. Direct comparison of only nonperforated cases, which was determined by pathological examination, revealed that SILA was significantly longer than CLA (60 min v. 50 min, p < 0.001). Patients who underwent SILA had longer in-hospital stays than those who underwent CLA (72 v. 55 h, p < 0.001); however, they had significantly fewer complications (3.0% v. 14.4%, p = 0.006).

conclusionIn addition to its cosmetic advantages, SILA led to rapid recovery and no increase in postsurgical pain or complications.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAppendectomyAppendicitisFemaleHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayLinear ModelsLogistic ModelsMaleMultivariate AnalysisOdds RatioPostoperative ComplicationsPostoperative PainRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID24869622
PMCPMC4035411
OpenAlexW2013118872

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.