ArticleInternational journal of women's health2024
Should an Interval Appendicectomy Be Performed by a Minimally Invasive Gynaecologist?
Article in International journal of women's health, 2024. 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: We aimed to explore the abnormal pathology findings in appendix specimens removed based on intraoperative abnormal appearance during elective surgery for benign gynaecological conditions by a minimally invasive gynaecologist, as well as the associated complication rate. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted in a tertiary referral surgical centre for benign gynaecological conditions between the years 2004-2023. It included patients who underwent appendicectomy by a trained minimally invasive gynaecologist based on observations during surgery for benign gynaecological conditions. Data included demographic, clinical, surgical and pathological information followed by postoperative complication data obtained from electronic medical records and direct communication with surgical colleagues. The primary outcome was the evaluation of the abnormal pathological findings in the appendix. The secondary outcome was the complication rate associated with appendicectomy in these cases. Results: The study cohort included 34 women who met inclusion criteria and underwent a laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis, chronic pelvic pain or a benign ovarian mass. Indications for appendicectomy included twelve cases (38.2%) with apparent appendiceal immobility (stiffness), fourteen cases (41.2%) with an appendix adherent to ovaries or the pelvic side walls, and seven cases (20.6%) with an abnormal appearance (large, wide, long, coiled, or curved). Pathological findings revealed six cases (17.6%) of acute or chronic appendicitis, four cases (11.8%) of endometriosis, five cases (14.7%) of abnormal pathological conditions, and three cases (8.8%) of cancer (two cases of well-differentiated adenocarcinoma and one case of low-grade appendiceal mucinous cystadenoma). Postoperative complication rate was 5.8% (two cases). Conclusion: This study supports incorporating appendicectomy by trained gynaecological specialists during gynaecological elective surgery when abnormal findings are encountered. Further research and guidelines in this area can provide even greater clarity and direction for the future of gynaecological surgical practice.
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.