ArticleJuntendo Iji zasshi = Juntendo medical journal2024
Clinical Outcomes of Single-incision Laparoscopic Appendectomy Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Appendectomy in Adult Acute Appendicitis.
Article in Juntendo Iji zasshi = Juntendo medical journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Real-world data of single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy: a German-wide prospective cohort study among 276 individuals.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Laparoscopic surgery is widely performed for acute appendicitis. We started conventional 3-port laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) in 1995 and introduced single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) in 2009. This study compared perioperative outcomes between SILA and CLA to evaluate the usefulness of SILA. Design: Retrospective observational study. Methods: The study included 568 patients who underwent emergency or semi-emergency surgery for acute appendicitis (327 by CLA and 241 by SILA) at our hospital between January 2009 and December 2020. Perioperative outcomes were compared between SILA and CLA after adjusting for patient demographics by propensity score matching (PSM). Results: PSM gave a matched sample of 224 patients in each of the CLA and SILA groups. There were significant differences between the two groups in time to initiation of oral intake, frequency of postoperative analgesic use, and length of postoperative hospital stay. Time to oral intake was significantly shorter in the SILA group (p = 0.02). Frequency of use of all analgesics, flurbiprofen axetil, and loxoprofen sodium was significantly higher in the SILA group (p < 0.01, p = 0.04, p < 0.01, respectively). The length of postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the SILA group (p < 0.01). The incidence of postoperative complications did not differ significantly between the two groups. Conclusions: Although SILA required significantly more postoperative analgesics than CLA, pain could be controlled by oral analgesics, and patients could be discharged earlier. Postoperative complications were comparable between the two groups. SILA was a safe and feasible procedure for adult acute appendicitis.
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.