ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
Single-incision laparoscopic surgery compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery for appendiceal mucocele: a series of 116 patients.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rare Appendicular Pathologies: Diagnostic Challenges, Surgical Management, and Outcomes in a Retrospective Tertiary-Center Cohort with Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Efficacy and safety of endoscopic transcecal appendectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Article
- Outcomes of laparoscopic single-incision caecal pole resection for low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm.Journal of minimal access surgery · 2025Article
- Endoscopic transcecal appendectomy: a new endotherapy for appendiceal orifice lesions.Endoscopy · 2022Article
- Transcolonic Endoscopic Appendectomy: A Single-Step "Two-In-One" Approach for Recurrent Appendicitis With Appendiceal Orifice Lesions.Journal of digestive diseasesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough the safety and feasibility of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for appendiceal mucocele (AM) has been reported, studies on single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for AM have not been reported. Here, we aimed to compare the perioperative and short-term outcomes between SILS and CLS for AM and to evaluate the oncological safety of SILS.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed the medical records of patients, diagnosed based on computed tomography findings, who underwent laparoscopic surgery for AM between 2010 and 2018 at one institution. We excluded patients strongly suspected of having malignant lesions and those with preoperative appendiceal perforation. Patients were divided into two groups-CLS and SILS. Pathological outcomes and long-term results were investigated. The median follow-up period was 43.7 (range: 12.3-118.5) months.
resultsUltimately, 116 patients (CLS = 68, SILS = 48) were enrolled. Patient demographic characteristics did not differ between the groups. The preoperative mucocele diameter was greater in the CLS than in the SILS group (3.2 ± 2.9 cm vs. 2.3 ± 1.4 cm, P = 0.029). More extensive surgery (right hemicolectomies and ileocecectomies) was performed in the CLS than in the SILS group (P = 0.014). Intraoperative perforation developed in only one patient per group. For appendectomies and cecectomies, the CLS group exhibited a longer operation time than the SILS group (63.3 ± 24.5 min vs. 52.4 ± 17.3 min, P = 0.014); the same was noted for length of postoperative hospital stay (2.9 ± 1.8 days vs. 1.7 ± 0.6 days, P < 0.001). The most common AM etiology was low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (71/116 [61.2%] patients); none of the patients exhibited mucinous cystadenocarcinoma. Among these 71 patients, there were 8 patients with microscopic appendiceal perforation or positive resection margins. No recurrence was detected.
conclusionsSILS for AM is feasible and safe perioperatively and in the short-term and yields favorable oncological outcomes. Despite the retrospective nature of the study, SILS may be suitable after careful selection of AM patients.
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.