Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35300711›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of emergency surgery : WJES2022

The necessity of abdominal drainage for patients with complicated appendicitis undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy: a retrospective cohort study.

Yu-Tso Liao, John Huang, Chia-Tung Wu, Pei-Chen Chen, Tsung-Ting Hsieh, Feipei Lai, Tzu-Chun Chen, Jin-Tung Liang

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of emergency surgery : WJES, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yu-Tso LiaoGraduate Institute of Clinical Medicine, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.
John HuangDivision of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, National Taiwan University Hospital and College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.
Chia-Tung WuDepartment of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.
Pei-Chen ChenGraduate Institute of Biomedical Electronics and Bioinformatics, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.
Tsung-Ting HsiehGraduate Institute of Biomedical Electronics and Bioinformatics, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.
Feipei LaiDepartment of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.
Tzu-Chun ChenDivision of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, National Taiwan University Hospital and College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.
Jin-Tung LiangDivision of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, National Taiwan University Hospital and College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC. jintung@ntu.edu.tw.
National Taiwan University · TWNational Taiwan University Hospital · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the necessity of abdominal drainage after laparoscopic appendectomy in patients with complicated appendicitis.

methodsPatients with acute appendicitis undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy at two hospitals between January 2014 and December 2018 were retrospectively included. Complicated appendicitis was defined as the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) grade ≥ II. The patients were classified according to the AAST grade and the indwelling of abdominal drainage. The postoperative surgical outcomes and recovery were compared among patient groups to evaluate the impact of abdominal drainage for patients with complicated appendicitis undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy.

resultsA total of 1241 patients was retrospectively included. Among them, there were 820 patients with simple appendicitis (AAST grade I) and 421 patients with complicated appendicitis (AAST grade ≥ II). For complicated appendicitis, the drainage group (N = 192) tended to harbor more overall complications, intra-abdominal abscess formation, time to resume a soft diet, and the postoperative length of hospitalization (P = 0.0000 for all). Multivariate logistic regression confirmed that abdominal drainage increased the risk of overall complications [Odds ratio (OR) 2.439; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.597-3.726; P ≤ 0.0001] and failed to decrease the risk of intra-abdominal abscess formation (OR 1.655; 95% CI 0.487-5.616; P = 0.4193). Multivariate linear regression analysis also showed that the drainage group harbored longer postoperative length of hospitalization (Coefficients: 20.697; 95% CI 15.251-26.143; P < 0.0001) and time to resume a soft diet (Coefficients: 45.899; 95% CI 34.502-57.297; P < 0.0001).

conclusionsAbdominal drainage did not prevent overall complications in patients with complicated appendicitis; paradoxically, it delayed the convalescence. Our results discourage the routine use of abdominal drainage and suggest that abdominal drainage should be performed sparingly.

Indexed as

Abdominal AbscessAppendicitisLaparoscopyAppendectomyDrainageHumansLength of StayPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID35300711
PMCPMC8928608
OpenAlexW4221068393

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.