ArticleJournal of minimal access surgery
Efficacy and safety of a new single-port model for appendectomy: Experimental study on swine.
Article in Journal of minimal access surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextWith the cooperation of surgeons and the engineering division of the company Bhio supply(©) (Esteio-RS, Brazil), a permanent single port was developed.
aimsAn experimental study assessed the safety and efficacy of the device using a swine laparoscopic appendectomy model (right salpingo-oophorectomy). SETTINGS AND
designExperimental randomised study. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 20 pigs were randomised for the conventional laparoscopic (CL) three-trocar technique or the single Centry port (CPort) with two working channels, aided by a transparietal thread. Operative times, surgical complications, CO2 use, and pneumoperitoneal pressure were checked. Pressure and chromopertubation tests assessed the ligatures. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: For quantitative outcomes, the Fisher's exact test analysed the samples to compare the surgeons in each group, the ANOVA test for parametric data (volume and pressure) and the Student's t-test for analysis of the fascial incision length. The binaries and isolated occurrence events were described in percentages.
resultsFor all cases, pneumoperitoneum was maintained. The CPort group, however, resulted in higher CO2 use (26.18 l; standard deviation [SD] ± 11.09) than CL group (5.69 l; SD ± 2.44) (P < 0.01). The mean pressure in CPort group (6.604 mmHg, SD ± 1.793) was comparatively lower than in CL group (7.382 mmHg, SD ± 1.833) (P = 0.363). There was no statistical difference between operative times, ligature safety or adverse surgical events between the different groups and surgeons.
conclusionThe surgical technique used with the single port showed no differences in safety and efficacy. Though it does require more CO2 use, its working dynamics did not lead to increased operative times. The results were similar between the two surgeons in the study, suggesting that they can be reproduced.
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.