ArticleDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2015
[Transvaginal/transumbilical hybrid NOTES appendicectomy : Comparison of techniques in uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis].
Article in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Guideline
- Systematic analysis of the safety and benefits of transvaginal hybrid-NOTES cholecystectomy.World journal of gastroenterology · 2015Trial
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
backgroundAppendicectomy (AE), the most frequent emergency surgical procedure, can be performed as a transvaginal hybrid natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) technique (TVAE). The question of feasibility also arises in cases of advanced inflammation with perforation. MATERIAL AND
methodsSince May 2012 all female patients with suspected acute appendicitis were offered a TVAE as an alternative to the standard procedure. Preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative parameters were registered prospectively.
resultsUntil October 2013 a total of 13 TVAEs had been performed. The median age of the patients was 41 years (range 20-76 years), median BMI was 23.1 (range 18.1-28.3 kg/m(2)) and the American Society of Anesthesiologists score (ASA) distribution (I/II/≥ III) was 8/5/0. Histology revealed three cases of perforated, one hemorrhagic necrotizing and seven phlegmonous appendicitis. Furthermore, there were two findings without inflammation, namely one neurogenic appendicopathy and one neuroendocrine tumor. For the three patients with perforated appendicitis, there was a trend for higher age (67.0 years versus 33.5 years, p=0.063) and a higher C-reactive protein (CRP) level on admission (134.4 mg/l versus 26.4 mg/l, p=0.043). Also, procedural time and hospital stay were longer (64 min versus 47 min, p=0.033 and 14 days versus 3 days, p=0.004, respectively). The former was mostly due to more extensive intraoperative flushing (volume 3000 ml versus 500 ml, p=0.013 and duration 13 min versus 2 min, p=0.011). None of the cases required conversion but two of the three postoperative complications occurred in patients with perforation, which also resulted in the longer hospital stay.
conclusionTechnically, TVAE seems feasible also in cases of perforated appendicitis. However, in these cases procedural time is prolonged due to more extensive flushing. Whether or not the longer hospital stay can be attributed to the perforation or if TVAE results in a higher rate of complications in cases of perforated appendicitis needs further evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24969344What 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.