ArticleSurgical endoscopy2015
Single-incision versus multiport laparoscopic appendectomy: a case-matched comparative analysis.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Randomized controlled trial of single incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy with long-term follow-up.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2020Trial
- Clinical efficacy of single-port transscrotal laparoscopic orchiopexy combined with hernia needle for palpable undescended testes in children.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe multiport technique is the gold standard for laparoscopic appendectomy, but the use of single-incision laparoscopy is on the increase. The aim of the present study was to compare case-matched cohorts of patients who had undergone single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) with those who had undergone conventional multiport laparoscopic appendectomy (MLA).
methodsIn a case-matched analysis, all single-incision laparoscopic appendectomies performed between July 2009 and December 2013 at one institution were reviewed and compared to multiport laparoscopic appendectomies performed during the same period. Patients who had undergone SILA were matched in terms of age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores with the same number of patients who had undergone MLA. Statistical evaluation included the description and comparison of demographic factors, details of surgery, and histological data. A univariate analysis was performed to assess potential risk factors for morbidity after SILA.
resultsOne hundred and fifty-six patients who had undergone SILA were reviewed, matched, and compared to the same number of patients who had undergone MLA. No significant difference was noted in mean operating times (50.83 vs. 50.61 min for SILA and MLA, respectively; p = 0.924) and the length of hospital stay (3.60 vs. 3.66 days; p = 0.704). No patient in either group required conversion to the open procedure while 6 (3.8 %) SILA patients were converted to multiport laparoscopy. SILA was not associated with significantly higher postoperative morbidity compared to MLA (9.6 % vs. 5.8 %; p = 0.288). Postoperative wound infection rates were higher after SILA (3.2 % vs. 0.6 %), but did not achieve statistical significance (p = 0.214). Statistical analysis revealed no risk factors for developing postoperative complications after the single-incision procedure.
conclusionSILA is a technically feasible and safe alternative to conventional MLA. The two procedures did not differ in terms of operating times, length of hospital stay, and postoperative outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25294525What 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.