ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2014
Development of a standardized laparoscopic caecum resection model to simulate laparoscopic appendectomy in rats.
Article in European journal of medical research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Laparoscopic lavage in a purulent peritonitis model: impact on inflammatory proteins.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- The cecal appendix is correlated with greater maximal longevity in mammals.Journal of anatomy · 2021Article
- Advantages of laparoscopic compared to conventional surgery are not related to an innate immune response of peritoneal immune activation: an animal study in rats.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2017Article
- Cytokine expression in the visceral adipose tissue after laparoscopic and conventional surgery in a rodent model.European journal of medical research · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has become one of the most common surgical procedures to date. To improve and standardize this technique further, cost-effective and reliable animal models are needed.
methodsIn a pilot study, 30 Wistar rats underwent laparoscopic caecum resection (as rats do not have an appendix vermiformis), to optimize the instrumental and surgical parameters. A subsequent test study was performed in another 30 rats to compare three different techniques for caecum resection and bowel closure.
resultsBipolar coagulation led to an insufficiency of caecal stump closure in all operated rats (Group 1, n = 10). Endoloop ligation followed by bipolar coagulation and resection (Group 2, n = 10) or resection with a LigaSure™ device (Group 3, n = 10) resulted in sufficient caecal stump closure.
conclusionsWe developed a LA model enabling us to compare three different caecum resection techniques in rats. In conclusion, only endoloop closure followed by bipolar coagulation proved to be a secure and cost-effective surgical approach.
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.