SynthesisInternational journal of surgery (London, England)2026
Meta-analysis of single-incision versus three-port laparoscopic appendectomy comparing operation time and postoperative pain.
Synthesis in International journal of surgery (London, England), 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnresolved debates persist regarding operative time and postoperative pain when comparing single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) with three-port conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) for acute appendicitis. To address these issues, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical outcomes of SILA and CLA.
methodsAn electronic search was performed using PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through January 2025. The primary outcomes were operative time and postoperative pain, while secondary outcomes included the incidence of postoperative complications, additional trocar requirements, open conversion rate, and cosmetic satisfaction. A meta-regression was conducted to assess the relationship between surgical outcomes and the era in which the surgery was performed.
resultsAfter excluding four RCTs because of a high risk of bias in the randomization process, a total of 21 RCTs encompassing 2454 patients were included. The pooled analysis showed that SILA required an average of 3.80 min longer than CLA (mean difference [MD] = 3.80 min, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.25 to 7.85; P = 0.07). However, meta-regression of studies arranged by initiation year revealed a significant trend toward a decreased MD with more recent surgeries ( P = 0.003). Although the CLA group required fewer additional analgesics (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.38, P < 0.01), no significant differences were found in pain scores at 12 h (MD = -0.04, 95% CI: -0.72 to 0.63, P = 0.91) or 24 h (MD = 0.08, 95% CI: -0.30 to 0.46, P = 0.67). Furthermore, while postoperative complications and open conversion rates were similar between groups, the SILA group reported higher cosmetic satisfaction. Additional trocars were inserted in 60 of 932 SILA cases (weighted proportion = 0.07, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.10).
conclusionGiven the diminishing difference in operative time and manageable postoperative pain compared with CLA, SILA may be considered a viable alternative for the treatment of acute appendicitis, particularly in selected patients for whom cosmetic outcomes are a priority.
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.