ReviewMinimally invasive surgery2014
Transvaginal appendectomy: a systematic review.
Review in Minimally invasive surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Worldwide research tendencies on natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques in the Treatment of Appendicitis: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- [Appendectomy: open versus laparoscopic versus single port : Evidence for choice of surgical procedure].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2019Review
- Development of a Two Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy Technique at a Rural Hospital.Minimally invasive surgery · 2019Article
- Transvaginal extraction of laparoscopic liver resection specimen.Interventional medicine & applied science · 2017Article
- Transgastric removal of a polycystic liver disease using mini-laparoscopic excision.Interventional medicine & applied science · 2016Review
- Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery: Review of Its Applications in Bariatric Procedures.Obesity surgery · 2016Review
- The research conundrum of acute appendicitis.The British journal of surgery · 2015Review
- Corrigendum to "Transvaginal Appendectomy: A Systematic Review".Minimally invasive surgery · 2015Article
- Total laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy with transvaginal specimen extraction is feasible in advanced gastric cancer.International journal of surgery case reports · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background. Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is a new approach that allows minimal invasive surgery through the mouth, anus, or vagina. Objective. To summarize the recent clinical appraisal, feasibility, complications, and limitations of transvaginal appendectomy for humans and outline the techniques. Data Sources. PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane, Google-Scholar, EBSCO, clinicaltrials.gov and congress abstracts, were searched. Study Selection. All related reports were included, irrespective of age, region, race, obesity, comorbidities or history of previous surgery. No restrictions were made in terms of language, country or journal. Main Outcome Measures. Patient selection criteria, surgical techniques, and results. Results. There were total 112 transvaginal appendectomies. All the selected patients had uncomplicated appendicitis and there were no morbidly obese patients. There was no standard surgical technique for transvaginal appendectomy. Mean operating time was 53.3 minutes (25-130 minutes). Conversion and complication rates were 3.6% and 8.2%, respectively. Mean length of hospital stay was 1.9 days. Limitations. There are a limited number of comparative studies and an absence of randomized studies. Conclusions. For now, nonmorbidly obese females with noncomplicated appendicitis can be a candidate for transvaginal appendectomy. It may decrease postoperative pain and enable the return to normal life and work off time. More comparative studies including subgroups are necessary.
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.