ArticleWorld journal of surgery2016
Severe Complications of Laparoscopic and Conventional Appendectomy Reported to the Finnish Patient Insurance Centre.
Article in World journal of surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is appendoscope a new option for the treatment of acute appendicitis?World journal of gastroenterology · 2024Review
- Comparison of laparoscopic and open appendectomy on wound infection and healing in complicated appendicitis.International wound journal · 2020Article
- The immune impact of mimic endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy and appendectomy on rabbits of acute appendicitis.Oncotarget · 2017Article
- Mortality Related to Appendectomy; a Population Based Analysis over Two Decades in Finland.World journal of surgery · 2017Article
- Operative Versus Nonoperative Management of Appendicitis: A Long-Term Cost Effectiveness Analysis.MDM policy & practiceArticle
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAppendectomy is considered a safe operation, the related complications being minor. Negative exploration is an accepted procedure to avoid complications of appendicitis. Treatment with antibiotics is under debate as a primary treatment for appendicitis. The aim of this study was to collect and analyze detailed information on complications and morbidity related to appendectomy using the information of the nationwide Patient Insurance Association (PIA) database and to study the incidence of patient claims and compensated injuries related to appendectomy in Finland.
methodsPatients' claims from 1990 to 2010 were collected from the PIA register. Complications were classified using the accordion severity grading system. Severe complications were selected for more detailed analyses. Laparoscopic and open surgeries were compared. Factors related to compensated claims were assessed. For statistical analysis, Fisher's exact test, logistic multivariate regression, and the Mann-Kendall function were used.
resultsAppendectomy complications leading to a patient insurance claim in Finland are rare (0.2 %). The rate of patients' claims after laparoscopic surgery was higher than after open surgery (p < 0.001), but the rate of compensated claims was equal. During the study period, complications after laparoscopic procedures more often led to additional surgery or organ failure (p = 0.03). Of the patients with a compensated injury, only 57 % had appendicitis. Preoperative computed tomography was used in only 6 % of these cases.
conclusionsPatient injuries and claims regarding severe complications after appendectomy are rare. The complications related to laparoscopic appendectomy were more severe than those of open surgery.
Indexed as
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.