ReviewCureus2025
Evolving Surgical Approaches to Adult Perforated Appendicitis: A Systematic Narrative Review.
Review 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.
- Comparative evaluation of early versus delayed appendectomy in complicated appendicitis.Bioinformation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Perforated appendicitis is the most severe form of acute appendicitis and is associated with significant postoperative morbidity. Advances in laparoscopic surgery and perioperative care have transformed its management, yet the optimal surgical strategy remains debated. This systematic narrative review, conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 and registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251125936), evaluated original studies on adult perforated appendicitis published between January 1, 2000 and June 1, 2025. Six studies encompassing 139,269 patients were included. Three compared laparoscopic and open appendectomy, while others examined prophylactic drainage, timing of drain removal, and immediate versus delayed surgery. Across studies, laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with shorter hospital stays (4-9.2 vs. 6-10.5 days) and lower overall complication rates (8.3-18.8% vs. 12.5-26.8%) compared with open surgery, though operative times were longer (114-121 vs. 94-106 minutes). Intra-abdominal abscess rates were variable: one early cohort reported similar rates (27.8% vs. 29.2%), the randomized trial showed higher risk with laparoscopy (11.7% vs. 4.5%), and a large database analysis showed lower risk (1.65% vs. 3.57%). Prophylactic drainage did not reduce abscess formation and was associated with increased complications and longer stay, whereas early drain removal following laparoscopy reduced morbidity (3.4% vs. 17.9%) without increasing abscess risk. Immediate surgery, although associated with lower drain utilization (14% vs. 42%), achieved fewer organ-space infections (14.0% vs. 23.8%) and shorter hospital stay (3.1 vs. 9.4 days) compared with delayed surgery. Overall, the evidence supports laparoscopic appendectomy as the preferred surgical approach for perforated appendicitis, with routine drainage discouraged and early removal favored when drains are placed. Future multicenter randomized studies are needed to refine perioperative strategies and establish standardized best practices in this high-risk subgroup.
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.