Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29260130›Full record

ArticleTurkish journal of surgery2017

Comparison of open appendectomy and laparoscopic appendectomy with laparoscopic intracorporeal knotting and glove endobag techniques: A prospective observational study.

Mehmet Aziret, Süleyman Çetinkünar, Hasan Erdem, Şahin Kahramanca, Hilmi Bozkurt, Onur Dülgeroğlu, Ali Cihat Yıldırım, Oktay İrkörücü, Emre Birzad Gölboyu

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Turkish journal of surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Laparoscopic appendectomy, stump closure and endoloops: A meta-analysis.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2022
    Article
  3. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mehmet AziretDepartment of General Surgery, Sakarya Univesity School of Medicine, Sakarya, Turkey.
Süleyman ÇetinkünarDepartment of General Surgery, Adana Numune Training and Research Hospital, Adana, Turkey.
Hasan ErdemDepartment of General Surgery, Adana Numune Training and Research Hospital, Adana, Turkey.
Şahin KahramancaDepartment of General Surgery, Kars State Hospital, Kars, Turkey.
Hilmi BozkurtDepartment of General Surgery, Adana Numune Training and Research Hospital, Adana, Turkey.
Onur DülgeroğluDepartment of General Surgery, Kars State Hospital, Kars, Turkey.
Ali Cihat YıldırımDepartment of General Surgery, Kars State Hospital, Kars, Turkey.
Oktay İrkörücüDepartment of General Surgery, Adana Numune Training and Research Hospital, Adana, Turkey.
Emre Birzad GölboyuDepartment of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Kars State Hospital, Kars, Turkey.
Sivas State Hospital · TRSakarya University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDespite the recent increase in the use of laparoscopic appendectomy procedures to treat acute appendicitis, laparoscopic appendectomy is not necessarily the best treatment modality. The aim of this study is to examine the value of laparoscopic intracorporeal knotting and glove endobag in terms of various parameters and in terms of reducing the costs related to laparoscopic appendectomy procedures. MATERIAL AND

methodsSeventy-two acute appendicitis patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy and open appendectomy surgery were enrolled in the study and were evaluated prospectively. The patients were divided into two groups: group 1 was treated with laparoscopic appendectomy using laparoscopic intracorpreal knotting and glove endobag (n=36) and group 2 was treated with open appendectomy (n=36). The two groups were statistically compared in terms of preoperative symptoms and signs, laboratory and imaging findings, operation time and technique, pain score, gas and stool outputs, duration of hospital stay, return to normal activity, and complications.

resultsNo statistically significant differences were found between the groups in relation to gender, age, body mass index, or pre-operation findings, which included loss of appetite, vomiting, time when pain started, displacement of pain, defense, rebound, imaging methods, and laboratory and pathology examinations (p>0.05). Moreover, there were no differences between the groups with respect to drain usage, hospital stay time, or complications (p>0.05). In contrast, a statistically significant difference was found between the groups in terms of operation time, pain scores, gas-stool outputs, and return to normal activity in the laparoscopic appendectomy group (p=0.001).

conclusionLaparoscopic appendectomy can be performed in a facile, safe, and cost-effective manner with laparoscopic intracorporeal knotting and glove endobag. By using these techniques, the use of expensive instruments can be avoided when performing laparoscopic appendectomy.

Indexed as

Acute appendicitisglove endobaglaparoscopic appendectomylaparoscopic intracorporeal knotting

Identifiers

PMID29260130
PMCPMC5731561
OpenAlexW2774979474

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.