Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39870851›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of urology2025

Mitrofanoff complications: time-to-event analysis of split versus intact appendix and meta-analysis.

Michael E Chua, Kay Rivera, Rodrigo Romao, Jin Kyu Kim, Abby Varghese, Mandy Rickard, Pippi Salle, Joana Dos Santos, Jessie Cunningham, Barbara Pannozzo and 1 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of urology, 2025. 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
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

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

11 authors.

Michael E ChuaGlobal Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. auhc_ekim@yahoo.com.
Kay RiveraDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Rodrigo RomaoDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Jin Kyu KimDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abby VargheseDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Mandy RickardDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Pippi SalleDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Joana Dos SantosDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Jessie CunninghamSickKids Hospital Library, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Barbara PannozzoDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Armando LorenzoDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the complication rates associated with split versus intact appendix Mitrofanoff procedures using a single-center retrospective analysis and a systematic review with meta-analysis. SUBJECTS AND

methodsThe study comprised a retrospective cohort analysis at a single institution, analyzing patients who underwent a laparoscopic-assisted Mitrofanoff with or without splitting the appendix from 2005 to 2016. The focus was on complications related to both Mitrofanoff and ACE channels. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, log-rank tests, and Cox regression were utilized to determine hazard ratios. Additionally, a PROSPERO (CRD42023481627)-registered systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted, evaluating complication rates across diverse patient populations using the Mantel-Haenszel method with a random-effects model.

resultsA total of 22 patients with intact appendix Mitrofanoff and 10 with split appendix for both Mitrofanoff and ACE creation were compared. The time to complications did not differ significantly, with a log-rank p-value of 0.72. The adjusted hazard ratio for the split appendix group was 1.26 (95% CI: 0.32-4.99). The systematic review and meta-analysis included 565 patients and indicated a higher, albeit non-significant, complication rate in the split appendix group (29.2%) compared to the intact group (20.4%), with an odds ratio of 1.49 (95% CI: 0.82-2.73).

conclusionThe analysis showed that, compared to appendicovesicostomy performed in isolation, the split appendix technique may be associated with slightly higher complication rates, though not statistically significant. The choice of surgical technique should be tailored to the individual anatomical and functional needs of patients, emphasizing the importance of personalized surgical planning and skilled execution.

Indexed as

AppendectomyAppendicitisLaparoscopyPostoperative ComplicationsAppendixHumansRetrospective StudiesTime FactorsACE channelIntact appendixMeta-analysisMitrofanoff procedurePatient-specific surgical planningRetrospective cohortSplit appendixSurgical complicationsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39870851

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.