ArticleJSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
Comparison of Laparoscopic and Open Surgery for Appendiceal Mucocele in Terms of Safety and Feasibility.
Article in JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Appendiceal mucocele (AM) is a rare clinicopathological entity, and the optimal surgical approach remains controversial because of concerns regarding intraoperative rupture and mucin spillage. This study aimed to compare laparoscopic surgery (LS) and open surgery (OS) in patients with AM in terms of perioperative safety, postoperative recovery, and pathological outcomes. Methods: This retrospective single-center study included 53 patients who underwent surgery for AM between January 2010 and January 2026. Patients were divided into LS and OS groups. Demographic and clinical characteristics, operative findings, postoperative outcomes, and histopathological results were compared between the groups. Results: Of the 53 patients, 20 underwent LS and 33 underwent OS. Baseline clinical characteristics were generally comparable between the groups, although female sex was more frequent in the LS group. Operative time, surgical procedure distribution, intraoperative perforation findings, intraoperative mucocele rupture, Clavien-Dindo scores, morbidity, readmission, and reoperation rates were not significantly different between the groups. LS was associated with earlier return of bowel function, earlier tolerance of a soft diet, and shorter postoperative hospital stay. Low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm was the most common histopathological diagnosis, and pathological diagnosis distribution and surgical margin positivity were comparable between the groups. Conclusion: LS may be considered a safe and feasible alternative to OS in selected patients with AM, providing comparable perioperative and pathological outcomes with more favorable short-term postoperative recovery. Careful patient selection, meticulous surgical technique, and readiness for conversion remain essential.
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.