Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33274135›Full record

ArticleCureus2020

A Comparative Study Between Single-Incision Laparoscopic Appendicectomy Using Conventional Instruments and Glove-Port (SILACIG) and Conventional Multiport Laparoscopic Appendicectomy (CMLA).

Ahamed Muneef, Uday Kumbhar, Chellappa Vijayakumar, Oseen Shaikh

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ahamed MuneefSurgery, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, IND.
Uday KumbharSurgery, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, IND.
Chellappa VijayakumarSurgery, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, IND.
Oseen ShaikhSurgery, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, IND.
Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction Appendicectomy is the most common surgical procedure. Conventional laparoscopic appendicectomy being time-tested, attempts were made to make it less invasive. Single-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy is the most recent trend. The present study is conducted with the aim to compare surgical outcomes between single-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy using conventional instruments and glove-port (SILACIG) with conventional multiport laparoscopic appendicectomy (CMLA). Materials and methods A total of 80 patients with appendicitis were recruited and underwent SILACIG (n=40) and CMLA (n=40). They were monitored for operative time, time of oral intake, pain on the second postoperative day, day of discharge, return to work, and scar size after two months. Results There was no significant difference between SILACIG and CMLA in terms of the time of oral intake, day of discharge, and return to work. Operative time was significantly more in the SILACIG group as compared to CMLA. Pain on the second postoperative day was less than CMLA, and the size of the operative scar was significantly smaller than 2 cm in the SILACIG group as compared to the CMLA group. Conclusion SILACIG is a feasible, safe, and cost-effective technique. It is comparable with CMLA in terms of preoperative diagnosis, postoperative oral intake, hospitalization period, and return to work. It shows less pain on the second postoperative day and cosmetic benefit but requires more operative time than CMLA.

Indexed as

appendicectomyglove-portsingle-incision laparoscopy

Identifiers

PMID33274135
PMCPMC7707898
OpenAlexW3097746419

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.