Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36363491›Full record

SynthesisMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)2022

Energy Devices for Clipless-Sutureless Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Utility and Safety.

Apoorv Singh, Sachit Anand, Niklas Pakkasjärvi, Ajay Verma, Minu Bajpai

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Apoorv SinghDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India.ORCID 0000-0001-5365-5543
Sachit AnandDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India.ORCID 0000-0002-0447-2350
Niklas PakkasjärviDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, 20520 Turku, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-1798-3416
Ajay VermaDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India.ORCID 0000-0002-0772-105X
Minu BajpaiDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India.
All India Institute of Medical Sciences · INUppsala University Hospital · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objectives: While laparoscopic appendectomy is standardized, techniques for appendiceal stump closure and mesoappendix division remain variable. Novel vessel sealing techniques are increasingly utilized ubiquitously. We sought to systematically summarize all relevant data and to define the current evidence on the safety and utility of energy devices for clipless−sutureless laparoscopic appendectomy in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Materials and Methods: This review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched. Inclusion criteria included studies with laparoscopic appendectomy for appendicitis. The intervention included patients undergoing division of mesoappendix and/or securing of the appendicular base using diathermy (Monopolar or Bipolar or LigaSure Sealing Device) or Harmonic Scalpel (Group A) compared to patients undergoing division of mesoappendix and/or securing of the appendicular base using endoclip or Hem-o-lok or ligature (Group B). The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Downs and Black scale. The outcomes of surgical site infection (SSI) or intra-abdominal collection, postoperative ileus, average operative duration, and length of hospital stay (LHS) were compared. Results: Six comparative studies were included; three were retrospective, two were prospective, and one was ambispective. Meta-analysis revealed a shorter operative duration in Group A with respect to appendicular base ligation (MD −12.34, 95% CI −16.57 to −8.11, p < 0.00001) and mesoappendix division (MD −8.06, 95% CI −14.03 to −2.09, p = 0.008). The pooled risk ratios showed no difference in SSI between groups. Additionally, no difference was observed in LHS. The risk of postoperative ileus was higher in group B regarding mesoappendix division (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.93, p = 0.02), but no difference was found concerning appendicular base ligation. The included studies showed a moderate-to-high risk of bias. Conclusions: Clipless−sutureless laparoscopic appendectomy is safe and fast. Postoperative ileus seems less common with energy devices for mesoappendix division. However, the studies included have a moderate-to-high risk of bias. Further studies addressing the individual devices with surgeons of similar levels are needed.

Indexed as

AppendicitisIleusLaparoscopyAppendectomyHumansLength of StayPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesRetrospective Studiesacute appendicitisclipless–sutureless laparoscopic appendectomypostoperative outcomes

Identifiers

PMID36363491
PMCPMC9694935
OpenAlexW4307704600

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.