ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2025
Take it or leave it? Incidental appendectomy at time of gynecologic oncology laparotomy.
Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Concurrent Appendectomy in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Gynecological Malignancies:Saudi medical journal · 2026Article
- Reconsidering Routine Appendectomy in Ovarian Neoplasms: Implications for Diagnostic Staging.Nigerian medical journal : journal of the Nigeria Medical AssociationReview
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
Objective: The role of appendectomy in gynecologic oncology surgery has primarily been studied in mucinous ovarian pathologies. We sought to assess the safety and potential benefits of performing incidental appendectomy at time of exploratory laparotomy performed by gynecologic oncologists. Methods: Retrospective chart review of patients undergoing exploratory laparotomy with the gynecologic oncology division. Exclusion criteria included cesarean hysterectomy and reoperation. Patients were matched on BMI, procedure date and type. 513 patients were identified for inclusion: 169 patients underwent appendectomy and 344 patients did not. Demographic and clinical characteristics were abstracted from the electronic medical record. Appendiceal appearance was confirmed via pathology report. Safety outcomes included length of hospital stay and postoperative complications. Results: The two groups were demographically similar. There was no significant difference in length of hospital stay between the cohorts (6.10 ± 5.34 days vs. 5.87 ± 5.34 days, P = 0.645) and no increased rate of any of the postoperative complications in the appendectomy group. 119 patients (70.4 %) had abnormal appendixes intraoperatively. Among normal appendixes, six (12 %) had an occult finding only diagnosed on final pathology. No patients with apparent pelvic-confined gynecologic cancer were upstaged solely due to metastasis to the appendix. Conclusions: When performed by a gynecologic oncologist, appendectomy at the time of laparotomy was safe and did not increase the risk of complications. Our results demonstrate a high rate of occult abnormal histology despite a normal intraoperative appearance. These findings suggest that intraoperative appearance alone is not sufficient, and support performing incidental appendectomy at the time of gynecologic oncology exploratory laparotomy.
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.