ArticleThe Indian journal of surgery2015
Clinical Treatment and Analysis of Laparoscopic Enterolysis Surgery.
Article in The Indian journal of surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This work aims to explore the application value and clinical efficacy of laparoscopic enterolysis surgery for the treatment of adhesive intestinal obstruction. A total of 126 inpatient cases of intestinal adhesion were selected. In order to observe the effects and complications of surgery, the patients were randomly assigned into laparoscopic and laparotomy groups, with 63 cases in each group. The operative time, blood loss, postoperative ambulation time, exhaustion time, postoperative analgesia number of patients, and hospital days of the patients in the laparoscopic group were compared with those in the control group, and the differences were all statistically significant (p < 0.05). In the laparoscopy group, two patients experienced rupture of the small intestine during the surgery, but recovered well after endoscopic suture repair, although there was one case of postoperative pulmonary infection. The difference was statistically significant in the laparotomy group of patients, with one case of intestinal fistula, two cases of surgical wound infection, one case of incisional hernia, three cases of postoperative pulmonary infection, and one case of urinary tract infection. Compared with laparotomy, laparoscopic enterolysis surgery has shorter operative time, less blood loss, faster postoperative recovery, and fewer complications.
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.