Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33174113›Full record

ArticleUpdates in surgery2021

Re-laparoscopy for the treatment of complications after laparoscopic appendectomy: is it possible to maintain the minimally invasive approach?

María A Casas, Francisco Laxague, Francisco Schlottmann, Emmanuel Ezequiel Sadava

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Updates in surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. The Association of Polish Surgeons (APS) clinical guidelines for the use of laparoscopy in the management of abdominal emergencies. Part II.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2023
    Article
  4. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

María A CasasDepartment of Surgery, Hospital Alemán of Buenos Aires, University of Buenos Aires, Av. Pueyrredón 1640 (ATT 1118), Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1043-3865
Francisco LaxagueDepartment of Surgery, Hospital Alemán of Buenos Aires, University of Buenos Aires, Av. Pueyrredón 1640 (ATT 1118), Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3140-883X
Francisco SchlottmannDepartment of Surgery, Hospital Alemán of Buenos Aires, University of Buenos Aires, Av. Pueyrredón 1640 (ATT 1118), Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3565-0559
Emmanuel Ezequiel SadavaDepartment of Surgery, Hospital Alemán of Buenos Aires, University of Buenos Aires, Av. Pueyrredón 1640 (ATT 1118), Buenos Aires, Argentina. esadava@hospitalaleman.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2473-6154
Universidad de Buenos Aires · AR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite laparoscopy is considered an adequate tool for the diagnosis and management of postoperative surgical complications, its role after laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) remains uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether laparoscopy is useful for treating complications after laparoscopic appendectomy. A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of patients undergoing LA, who needed a reoperation for postoperative complications during the period 2006-2020, was performed. Demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. A total of 2019 LA were performed, and 41 patients (2%) underwent a RL for post appendectomy complications. Twenty-three patients (56%) were male. The mean age was 32 years old (16-92 years). The majority of patients (75%) had a complicated acute appendicitis in the first operation. The most common findings at RL were generalized peritonitis (36.4%) and intraabdominal abscesses (26.8%). Five patients (12.1%) developed stump appendicitis, all of them as a late complication. The procedures were completed laparoscopically in 85% and 6 patients (15%) required conversion to an open approach. Three patients (7.3%) required a percutaneous drainage and two patients (4.9%) needed an additional surgery (laparotomy) after RL, all of them presenting with generalized peritonitis at the RL. No mortality was registered. Re-laparoscopy is feasible, safe, and highly effective for the diagnosis and treatment of post appendectomy complications. RL should be encouraged to avoid more aggressive procedures.

Indexed as

Abdominal AbscessAppendicitisLaparoscopyAdultAppendectomyHumansLength of StayMalePostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeIntraabdominal infectionsLaparoscopic appendectomyLaparoscopyRelaparoscopy

Identifiers

PMID33174113
OpenAlexW3106025484

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.