Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37428286›Full record

ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2023

Appendiceal stump closure in laparoscopic appendectomy: one endoloop vs. two endoloops vs. two endoclips-does it matter?

Rudnicki Yaron, Soback Hagai, Tibi Nayyera, Gutwetter Nili, Ken-Dror Shai, Avital Shmuel

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2023. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

6 authors.

Rudnicki YaronDepartment of Surgery, Meir Medical Center, Affiliated with the Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. yaron217@gmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1471-0017
Soback HagaiDepartment of Surgery, Meir Medical Center, Affiliated with the Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Tibi NayyeraDepartment of Surgery, Meir Medical Center, Affiliated with the Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Gutwetter NiliDepartment of Surgery, Meir Medical Center, Affiliated with the Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Ken-Dror ShaiDepartment of Surgery, Meir Medical Center, Affiliated with the Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Avital ShmuelDepartment of Surgery, Meir Medical Center, Affiliated with the Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAppendiceal stump leak rate after laparoscopic appendectomy is extremely low. Various methods are used to close the appendiceal stump. This study aimed to compare the outcome of three appendiceal stump closure methods.

methodsA retrospective study comparing stump closure methods and postoperative outcomes was conducted from January 2018 to June 2020. Patient data included demographics, pre-operative data, surgical technique, findings, and postoperative complications.

resultsOut of 1021 appendectomy patients, 733 underwent laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis utilizing one of the three compared appendiceal stump closure methods. Consequently, 360 appendixes were ligated with one endoloop (1EL group), 300 appendixes had two endoloops (2EL group), and 73 appendixes were ligated with two endoclips (2EC group). All groups used a LigaSure for resection. The rate of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess was 1% (4 patients) in 1EL group vs. 1% (3 patients) in 2EL group vs. none in 2EC group (p = 0.43). There were no reported appendiceal stump leaks. Overall complication rates were 4% (14 patients), 3% (9 patients), and 0 (p = 0.15), and the mean operative length was 43 ± 21, 54 ± 22, and 43 ± 20 mins for the 1EL, 2EL, and 2EC, respectively (p < 0.01). Average cost of one endoloop is 110$, and one endoclip cartridge is 180$.

conclusionsNone of the methods were found clinically superior over the others. Considering the low and mild complication rate, it appears reasonable to prefer one method simply by cost. The use of a single endoloop may result in substantial cost reduction. Medical centers may advise surgeons to use a single-endoloop technique.

Indexed as

AppendicitisLaparoscopyAppendectomyHumansPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesAcute appendicitisAppendiceal stump leakCost reductionEndoclipEndoloop

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.