Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29098385›Full record

ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2018

Incidental appendectomy during robotic laparoscopic prostatectomy-safe and worth to perform?

C Hüttenbrink, G Hatiboglu, T Simpfendörfer, J P Radtke, R Becker, D Teber, B Hadaschik, S Pahernik, M Hohenfellner

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05202600 (Justification of Incidental Appendectomy With Respect to Pathohistological Findings), which is not on this 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT05202600 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Justification of Incidental Appendectomy With Respect to Pathohistological Findings

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity Hospital of SplitRan2022 to 2022Enrolled1,000ConditionsAppendix TumorArmsAppendectomy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Robotic Appendicectomy: A review of feasibility.Sultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Histopathological features of incidental appendectomy specimens obtained from living liver donors.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2020
    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

9 authors.

C HüttenbrinkDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. clemens.huettenbrink@gmail.com.
G HatibogluDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. gencay.hatiboglu@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
T SimpfendörferDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
J P RadtkeDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
R BeckerDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
D TeberDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
B HadaschikDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
S PahernikDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
M HohenfellnerDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study is to investigate the safety and patients' benefit of incidental appendectomy during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP).

methodsFifty-three patients, who had incidental appendectomy during RALRP between January 2012 and March 2014, were enrolled to this study. To evaluate the safety of the procedure, following parameters were evaluated: patient age, duration of surgery, perioperative complications (classified by Clavien-Dindo), time to bowel movement, and length of hospital stay. Furthermore, intraoperative visual appearance, location, and histopathological evaluation of the appendix were evaluated. Data was analyzed by descriptive statistics.

resultsMean age of patients was 61 years, the average hospital stay 5 days. No perioperative complications occurred. The appendix was unsuspicious in 39 patients (73.6%); 14 patients (26.4%) had macroscopically signs of inflammation. Of the 53 resected appendixes, the histopathological evaluation showed 33 (62.2%) inconspicuous appendices, 11 (20.8%) post-inflammatory changes, 4 (7.5%) with chronical signs of inflammation and 3 (5.7%) with signs of acute inflammation. In 2 patients (3.8%), low-grade mucinous neoplasms were found in the specimens.

conclusionsIncidental appendectomy during RALRP is a feasible procedure. With regard to inflammation and neoplastic changes, incidental appendectomy can be considered for patients scheduled for robot-assisted prostate surgery.

Indexed as

AgedAppendectomyCohort StudiesFollow-Up StudiesGermanyHumansIncidental FindingsMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimeProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentRobotic Surgical ProceduresTreatment OutcomeDa Vinci prostatectomyIncidental appendectomyLaparoscopyProstatectomyrobot-assisted prostatectomy

Identifiers

PMID29098385

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.