Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24883151›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine research2014

Lessons learned with laparoscopic management of complicated grades of acute appendicitis.

Carlos Augusto Gomes, Cleber Soares Junior, Evandro de Freitas Campos Costa, Paula de Assis Pereira Alves, Carolina Vieira de Faria, Igor Vitoi Cangussu, Luisa Pires Costa, Camila Couto Gomes, Felipe Couto Gomes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Partial cecum resection using endostapler in acute complicated appendicitis with appendiceal base necrosis.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

9 authors.

Carlos Augusto GomesSurgery Department, Hospital Universitario (HU) Terezinha de Jesus da Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas e da Saude de Juiz de Fora (SUPREMA), Brasil; Hospital Universitario (HU) Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora (UFJF), Brasil.
Cleber Soares JuniorSurgery Department, Hospital Universitario (HU) Terezinha de Jesus da Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas e da Saude de Juiz de Fora (SUPREMA), Brasil; Hospital Universitario (HU) Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora (UFJF), Brasil.
Evandro de Freitas Campos CostaAnestesiology Unit, Hospital Terezinha de Jesus da Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas e da Saude de Juiz de Fora (SUPREMA), Brasil.
Paula de Assis Pereira AlvesSurgical Unit, Hospital Terezinha de Jesus da Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas e da Saude de Juiz de Fora (SUPREMA), Brasil.
Carolina Vieira de FariaSurgical Unit, Hospital Terezinha de Jesus da Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas e da Saude de Juiz de Fora (SUPREMA), Brasil.
Igor Vitoi CangussuSurgical Unit, Hospital Terezinha de Jesus da Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas e da Saude de Juiz de Fora (SUPREMA), Brasil.
Luisa Pires CostaInternal Medicine Departament, Hospital Universitario (HU), Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora (UFJF), Brasil.
Camila Couto GomesInternal Medicine Departament, Hospital Universitario (HU), Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora (UFJF), Brasil.
Felipe Couto GomesMorphology Unit, Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas e da Saude de Juiz de Fora (SUPREMA), Brasil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopy has not been consolidated as the approach of first choice in the management of complicated appendicitis. Methodological flaws and absence of disease stratification criteria have been implicated in that less evidence. The objective is to study the safe and effectiveness of laparoscopy in the management of complicated appendicitis according to laparoscopic grading system.

methodFrom January 2008 to January 2011, 154 consecutive patients who underwent a laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis were evaluated in the prospective way. The patient's age ranged from 12 to 75 years old (31.7 ± 13.3) and 58.3% were male. Complicated appendicitis refers to gangrenous and/or perforated appendix and were graded as 3A (segmental necrosis), 3B (base necrosis), 4A (abscess), 4B (regional peritonitis) and 5 (diffuse peritonitis). The outcomes including operative time, infection complication, operative complications and conversion rate were chosen to evaluate the procedure.

resultsThe grade 3A was the most frequent with 50 (32.4%) patients. The mean operative time was 69.4 ± 26.3 minutes. The grade 4A showed the highest mean operative time (80.1 ± 26.7 minutes). The wound and intra-abdominal infection rates were 2.6 and 4.6%, respectively. The base necrosis was the most important factor associated with the conversion (5.2%). The grades 4A and 5 were associated with greater possibility of intra-abdominal collection. There were no operative complications.

conclusionThe laparoscopic management of all complicated grades of acute appendicitis is safe and effective and should be the procedure of first choice. The laparoscopic grading system allows us to assess patients in the same disease stage.

Indexed as

AppendectomyAppendicitisLaparoscopyTreatment

Identifiers

PMID24883151
PMCPMC4039097

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.