Observational studyRevista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social2025
[Postoperative result in appendectomy with Pouchet technique versus other surgical techniques].
Observational study in Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, 2025. 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
Background: Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency worldwide. Closure of the appendiceal stump is a critical step to prevent postoperative complications. Objective: To compare postoperative outcomes of appendectomy using the Pouchet technique versus other appendiceal stump closure techniques. Material and methods: This retrospective study analyzed medical records of patients over 18 years of age who underwent surgery for acute appendicitis at a secondary-level hospital. Postoperative outcomes were assessed based on the presence of infectious complications, operative time, and length of hospital stay, comparing the surgical techniques used: Pouchet, Halsted, Zuckerman, and Parker. Descriptive and inferential statistics were applied, using the chi-square test to estimate differences in postoperative outcomes, with a significance level of ≤ 0.05. Results: A total of 118 medical records were analyzed, of which 70 corresponded to female patients (59.3%), with a median age of 39 years (interquartile range: 18-92 years). The most commonly used surgical techniques were: Pouchet (74 cases; 62.7%), Halsted (27; 22.8%), Zuckerman (12; 10.1%), and Parker (5; 4.2%). The Pouchet and Halsted techniques showed statistically significant differences compared to other techniques in terms of shorter operative time and hospital stay (p = 0.000 and p = 0.011, respectively). Additionally, the Pouchet and Parker techniques were associated with statistically significant differences in the incidence of infectious complications (p = 0.030). Conclusions: The Pouchet technique demonstrated the best postoperative outcomes in terms of operative time, hospital stay duration, and lower incidence of infectious complications.
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.