Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25533898›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2015

Clinical NOTES appendectomy study: comparison of transvaginal NOTES appendectomy in hybrid technique with laparoscopic appendectomy.

Joern Bernhardt, Holger Steffen, Sylke Schneider-Koriath, Kaja Ludwig

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. [Appendectomy: open versus laparoscopic versus single port : Evidence for choice of surgical procedure].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2019
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Joern BernhardtDepartment of Diagnostic und Interventional Endoscopy, Klinikum Suedstadt, Rostock, Germany, joern.bernhardt@kliniksued-rostock.de.
Holger Steffen
Sylke Schneider-Koriath
Kaja Ludwig
Klinikum Südstadt Rostock · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe proposed advantages of NOTES are aimed to assess the comparison with standard procedures. Complications are a major focus of its evaluation. We initiated a prospective comparison between transvaginal hybrid appendectomy versus laparoscopic appendectomy. PATIENTS AND

methodsFor each, NOTES and laparoscopic appendectomy, 10 consecutive female patients participated in the study with follow-up documentation for 35 days and after 1 year. Transvaginal appendectomy was considered a non-standard medical procedure and required individual patient's consent. Pre- and postoperative gynecological examinations were performed. Questionnaire-based evaluation included issues related to quality of life in addition to objective clinical findings. The study is approved by the ethics committee of the University of Rostock.

resultsAll women returned questionnaires for evaluation. Age and BMI are comparable. Overall procedure time was significantly shorter in laparoscopy. The only postoperative complication consisted of an intra-abdominal abscess after laparoscopic appendectomy. One patient of the NOTES group suffered from new abdominal pain 3 weeks postoperatively; a mini-laparoscopy showed a normal situation. Significant differences (p < 0.05) of the questionnaire-based comparison with advantages for the NOTES group were found in following items: reduced activity at day 1-14, postoperative pain at day 1, general health conditions at day 1-3 and quality of life at day 3. NOTES patients wished significantly earlier to be discharged and started significantly earlier with activities, but no differences existed after 4 weeks.

conclusionsTransvaginal flexible appendectomy appears to be a safe procedure performed in hybrid technique. Data from the study point to shortened recovery intervals and improved quality of life.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyAdolescentAdultAgedAppendectomyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNatural Orifice Endoscopic SurgeryQuality of LifeVagina

Identifiers

PMID25533898
OpenAlexW2003154135

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.