SynthesisWorld journal of surgery2019
Unfinished Business: A Systematic Review of Stump Appendicitis.
Synthesis in World journal of surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stump appendicitis in children: a systematic review.Pediatric surgery international · 2023Pooled it
- High-volume center analysis and systematic review of stump appendicitis: solving the pending issue.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2022Pooled it
- 'Stumped' by stump appendicitis-a case report and literature review.Journal of surgical case reports · 2024Article
- Stumped by a Case of Appendicitis After Appendectomy.Ochsner journal · 2024Article
- Article
- Stump appendicitis, a rare but serious complication of appendectomy: A case report.Clinical case reports · 2021Article
- Appendicitis and beyond: a pictorial review of various appendiceal abnormalities.Emergency radiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStump appendicitis is defined as interval inflammation of any residual appendicular tissue, after an appendicectomy. We present a systematic review of case series and case reports on stump appendicitis, emphasising on risk factors, diagnosis and surgical management.
methodsThe English literature (1945-2018) was reviewed, using PubMed, Embase and GoogleScholar, combining the terms "appendix", "appendicitis", "stump", "residual", "recurrent" and "retained". In total, 127 studies were included, describing 164 patients (males 59%, mean age 36 ± 17 years).
resultsIndex surgery was open in 59% and laparoscopic in 38%. It was described as "difficult" or "complicated" in 31%. 20% of patients reported episodes of recurrent abdominal pain during the time interval between index and stump appendicitis (range 2 weeks to 60 years, median 2 years). Right lower quadrant pain was the most frequent complain (88%), leukocytosis was found in 56%, whereas 92% of patients underwent imaging testing, which was diagnostic or highly suspicious in 67.5%. Mean delay between beginning of symptoms and surgery was 2.4 ± 2.3 days. The operative approach was open in 61% and laparoscopic in 35% of cases. The operation was characterised as "difficult" or "complicated" in 45%. In the majority (88%), a completion stump appendicectomy was performed, with 11% requiring more extensive procedures. Mean length of resected stump was 3.1 ± 1.6 cm (range 0.5-10 cm).
conclusionsStump appendicitis may occur following both open and laparoscopic approach, when the residual stump is > 0.5 cm. Its clinical significance lies in the delayed diagnosis, leading to higher incidence of complications and the need for more extensive surgery.
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.