ArticleCureus2025
Conversion Rates and Outcomes of Laparoscopic Appendectomy in Complicated Appendicitis: A Retrospective 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 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.
- The fascial involvement score retains diagnostic value for complicated appendicitis on CT when specific signs are absent.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Impact of Disease Severity and Age on Outcomes After Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Laparoscopic appendectomy is a minimally invasive technique widely preferred for acute appendicitis due to less postoperative pain, faster recovery, and better cosmesis compared to open surgery. However, in complicated appendicitis, such as perforation, gangrene, abscess, or peritonitis-distorted anatomy, friable tissues, dense adhesions, and contamination can make the procedure technically demanding. These challenges may require conversion to open surgery, potentially increasing operative time, complications, and hospital stay. Objective To evaluate the conversion rate from laparoscopic to open appendectomy in patients with complicated appendicitis and to compare postoperative outcomes between converted and non-converted cases. Methodology This retrospective study included 393 patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis at Shalamar Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan, from February 2022 to February 2025. Data were collected from patient records, operative notes, and discharge summaries. Variables included demographic details, intraoperative findings, reasons for conversion, operative time, postoperative complications, hospital stay, and 30-day readmissions. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 25 (IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, USA), with a p-value < 0.05 considered significant. Results The conversion rate was 19.8% (n = 78). Common reasons for conversion included dense adhesions (41%), poor visualization (25.6%), and intraoperative bleeding (15.4%). Converted patients had significantly longer operative times (91.6 ± 22.4 vs. 61.7 ± 15.8 minutes, p < 0.001), higher surgical site infection rates (23.1% vs. 8.6%, p < 0.001), and longer hospital stays (5.6 ± 2.4 vs. 3.8 ± 1.6 days, p < 0.001). Risk factors associated with conversion included BMI > 30 (p = 0.004), CRP > 100 mg/L (p = 0.001), delayed presentation >48 hours (p = 0.001), and prior abdominal surgery (p = 0.03). Conclusion This study concludes that while laparoscopic appendectomy is effective for complicated appendicitis, conversion to open surgery is associated with increased morbidity. Early identification of high-risk patients based on clinical and laboratory parameters may help improve outcomes and surgical decision-making in complicated appendicitis.
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.