ReviewCureus2026
Evolving Paradigms in Minimal Access Surgery: A Comprehensive Review of Single-Incision Laparoscopic Appendicectomy.
Review in Cureus, 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
Single-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy (SILA) has emerged as an evolution of minimally invasive surgery, aiming to minimize access trauma while maintaining the advantages of conventional laparoscopic appendicectomy (CLA). This review analyzes the cumulative evidence from 24 PubMed-indexed studies comparing SILA and CLA, with a focus on safety, operative outcomes, cosmesis, and the cost-saving impact of glove-port innovations. A structured literature review was performed using PubMed, including 24 studies (12 randomized controlled trials, seven meta-analyses, three retrospective cohorts, and two feasibility studies). Data were extracted for operative duration, pain scores, complications, hospital stay, cosmetic satisfaction, and economic parameters. Studies involving pediatric, adult, and complicated appendicitis cases were included. Across 10,968 patients (SILA = 5,246; CLA = 5,722), no significant difference was observed in major complications, hospital stay, or infection rates. SILA demonstrated shorter recovery (3.8 vs. 4.5 days), lower pain scores (Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) 3.2 vs. 3.5), and superior cosmetic satisfaction (9.1 vs. 7.8). The mean operative time was initially longer for SILA (49.8 vs. 42.5 minutes) but equalized after 20-25 cases. Glove-port SILA reduced costs by 45-60% compared to CLA. The overall wound infection rate was 2.5% for SILA versus 2.7% for CLA, and umbilical hernia occurrence was 1.3% versus 0.9%, respectively. SILA offers comparable safety and faster recovery than CLA, with enhanced cosmetic outcomes and substantial cost benefits using glove-port techniques. Once the learning curve is surpassed, SILA is an effective, safe, and accessible alternative for uncomplicated appendicitis, especially in cost-conscious healthcare settings.
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.