ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020
Re-evaluation of purse string suture in laparoscopic appendectomy.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of three different methods for stump closure in laparoscopic appendectomy: Endoloop, Hem-o-lok clip, and endostapler.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2024Article
- Article
- Feasibility and efficacy of endoscopic purse-string suture-assisted closure for mucosal defects induced by endoscopic manipulations.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) using purse string invaginating sutures (PS) with those using intracorporeal knotting (IK) or Hem-o-lock polymeric clips (HL).
methodsA total of 882 patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy from January 2015 to December 2017 were studied retrospectively. Of these, 538 patients used PS, 229 patients used IK and 115 patients used HL to close the appendiceal stump. Their demographic characteristics, intraoperative findings and postoperative complications were analysed retrospectively.
resultsThere were similar percentages of complicated cases in all the groups (21.7% in PS vs. 21.4% in IK vs. 24.3% in HL, p = 0.803). The mean length of hospital stay was shorter in PS group when compared to IK or HL group (3.72 + 2.35 in PS vs. 4.41 + 2.40 in IK, 4.43 + 2.66 in HL, p < 0.05) as well as lower ASA scores (1.7 + 0.6 in PS vs. 1.8 + 0.6 in IK vs. 1.7 + 0.6 in HL, p < 0.05). The overall complication rates for the PS, the HL and the IK groups were 12.1, 8.7 and 9.2%, respectively. The rate of wound infection was higher in PS group for uncomplicated appendicitis (5.0% in PS vs. 2.8% in IK and 1.1% in HL, p = 0.129). Furthermore, there were no differences in the rate of intra-abdominal infection among the groups in both uncomplicated and complicated cases.
conclusionsBased on our results, purse string suture failed to demonstrate better postoperative outcome in laparoscopic appendectomy and is no longer recommended by our institution as initial approach.
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.