ArticleInternational journal of surgery case reports2023
Case report: Duplicated appendicitis with history of cloacal exstrophy causing bowel obstruction.
Article in International journal of surgery case reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCloacal and bladder exstrophy are rare embryological defects that can cause developmental disruption of surrounding organ structures, the pelvis, spinal cord, and small intestines being the most commonly affected. Duplicated appendix is another rare embryological defect that has historically caused confusing clinical presentations. Our case highlights a rare instance of a patient with cloacal exstrophy who presented with a bowel obstruction and an associated inflamed duplicated appendix. CASE PRESENTATION: A newborn male is born with omphalocele-exstrophy-imperforate anus-spinal defects (OEIS) complex. As primary surgical reconstruction was pursued, the patient was found to have a non-inflamed duplicated appendix, which was left unremoved. In the following months, the patient experienced episodes of small bowel obstruction, eventually requiring surgical intervention. During this operation, the duplicated appendix was noted to be inflamed, prompting removal of both appendices. DISCUSSION: This case highlights the increased prevalence of duplicated appendix in a patient with cloacal exstrophy, as well as the utility of prophylactic appendectomy for patients incidentally found to have a duplicated appendix intraoperatively. The duplicated appendix may lead to increased rates of complications and atypical presentation of appendicitis, supporting the practice of prophylactic appendectomy in patients with an incidentally found duplicated appendix.
conclusionWe suggest clinicians be aware of the association and potentially atypical presentation of appendicitis in patients with a duplicated appendix, particularly in the setting of cloacal exstrophy. The decision to prophylactically remove an incidentally found, non-inflamed duplicated appendix may be beneficial in preventing confusing clinical presentations and future complications.
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.