Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25381588›Full record

Trial reportPediatric surgery international2015

Single-site laparoscopic appendectomy in children using conventional instruments: a prospective, randomized, control trial.

Kai Wu, Liucheng Yang, Aiguo Wu, Jianjun Wang, Shuai Xu, Haijun Zhao, Zonghai Huang

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Pediatric surgery international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

7 authors.

Kai WuDepartment of Surgery, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510282, Guangdong Province, China.
Liucheng Yang
Aiguo Wu
Jianjun Wang
Shuai Xu
Haijun Zhao
Zonghai Huang

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeSingle-site laparoscopic surgery (SSLS) is still only used in limited situations to treat children with appendicitis. Using conventional laparoscopic (CL) equipment to perform SSLS appendectomy is considered a valuable application in China. This prospective randomized trial aims to evaluate the surgical outcome of SSLS and CL appendectomy using CL equipment.

methodsSixty patients were recruited and randomly assigned to receive SSLS or 3-port CL appendectomy between February 2011 and June 2013. Each case of SSLS appendectomy was performed using CL instruments. Surgery outcomes, including operative time, conversion rates, postoperative complications, hospital stays, and hospital costs were evaluated.

resultsPatient characteristics were similar between groups. The SSLS using CL instruments was successful in all the 30 patients and no conversions occurred. Mean operative time was longer in the SSLS group than the CL group (64.3 ± 3.1 vs 53.0 ± 2.9 min, respectively; p = 0.000). Complication rates, lengths of hospital stay, and hospital costs were similar between the two groups.

conclusionsThe findings of this study demonstrate that using conventional instruments to perform SSLS is technically feasible and safe in children. Although SSLS appendectomy does increase the operative time, it does not increase the complication rate and hospital cost.

Indexed as

AppendectomyAppendicitisChildFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansLaparoscopyMaleProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID25381588

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.