Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27752812›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2017

Interventions to optimize recovery after laparoscopic appendectomy: a scoping review.

James K Hamill, Jamie-Lee Rahiri, Gamage Gunaratna, Andrew G Hill

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisScoping Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.2field-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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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 3 institutions in 1 country.

James K HamillDepartment of Surgery, Starship Hospital, Park Road, Grafton, Private Bag 92024, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand. jham011@aucklanduni.ac.nz.
Jamie-Lee RahiriDepartment of Surgery, South Auckland Clinical Campus, The University of Auckland, Middlemore Hospital, Otahuhu, Auckland, New Zealand.
Gamage GunaratnaSchool of Medicine, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Andrew G HillDepartment of Surgery, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
University of Auckland · NZMiddlemore Hospital · NZStarship Children's Health · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNo enhanced recovery after surgery protocol has been published for laparoscopic appendectomy. This was a review of evidence-based interventions that could optimize recovery after appendectomy.

methodsInterventions for the review Clinical pathway, fast-track or enhanced recovery protocols; needlescopic approach; single incision laparoscopic (SIL) approach; natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES); regional nerve blocks; intraperitoneal local anaesthetic (IPLA); drains. Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science Core Collection. Study eligibility criteria Randomized controlled trial (RCT); prospective evaluation with historical controls for studies assessing clinical pathways/protocols. Participants People undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis. Study appraisal and synthesis methods Meta-analysis, random effects model.

resultsClinical pathways for laparoscopic appendectomy were safe in selected patients, but may be associated with a higher readmission rate. Needlescopic surgery offered no recovery advantage over traditional laparoscopic appendectomy. SIL afforded no recovery advantage over conventional laparoscopic surgery, but may increase operative time in children. The search found no RCT on NOTES appendectomy. Transversus abdominis plane blocks did not significantly reduce pain after laparoscopic appendectomy. IPLA should be considered in laparoscopic appendectomy; studies in paediatric surgery are needed. The search found no RCT on the use of drains in appendectomy.

conclusionsThis review identified gaps in the literature on optimizing recovery after laparoscopic appendectomy and found the need for more randomized controlled trials on regional anaesthesia and intraperitoneal local anaesthesia in children.

Indexed as

AppendectomyCritical PathwaysLaparoscopyAppendicitisChildHumansModels, StatisticalPerioperative CareTreatment OutcomeAnalgesiaAppendectomyLaparoscopyLength of stayPostoperative pain

Identifiers

PMID27752812
OpenAlexW2535953292

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.