ArticleCureus2025
Comparison of Surgical Site Infections in Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy: A Prospective Cohort Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- The Safety and Feasibility of Single-Stage Versus Staged Laparoscopic Approach for Acute Appendicitis with Inguinal Hernia in Pediatric Patients: A Comparative Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim To compare the incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs) in laparoscopic appendectomy vs. open appendectomy. Methodology A total of 80 patients with an acute appendicitis diagnosis were chosen and split into two groups: Group A (laparoscopic appendectomy) and Group B (open appendectomy), and permission from the hospital's ethical committee was obtained before patient enrollment. Eighty patients, of either gender, undergoing laparoscopic and open appendectomy were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. On the first, second, third, fifth, and seventh days following surgery, the wound was evaluated and scored in accordance with the wound asepsis score. Then, the overall wound asepsis score and SSIs were computed. In both groups, SSIs were compared. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 23 (Released 2015; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) was used to analyze the results by applying the Chi-square test and Student t-test, which were then presented in the form of descriptions, statistical tables, and charts. Results Group A's mean age was 41.70 ± 12.195 years, whereas Group B's mean age was 43.75 ± 9.131 years (p = 0.39). Group A's and Group B's BMIs were 24.65 ± 2.98 and 25.90 ± 3.07 (p = 0.06), respectively, and the male-to-female ratios were 1.2:1 and 1.6:1, respectively. SSIs were notably higher in the open appendectomy group (12, or 30%) compared to the laparoscopic group (4, or 10%) (p = 0.02). Conclusion The incidence of SSIs was notably higher in the open appendectomy group as compared to the laparoscopic appendectomy group; therefore, laparoscopic appendectomy is a safer approach toward acute appendicitis, as compared to open appendectomy in terms of SSIs.
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.