Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42521831›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2026

Hem-o-lok clip versus endoloop for appendiceal stump closure in laparoscopic appendectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Erkan Karacan, Eyüp Murat Yılmaz

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Erkan KaracanDepartment of General Surgery, Karabük University Faculty of Medicine, Karabuk, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8081-5944
Eyüp Murat YılmazDepartment of General Surgery, Söke Public Hospital, Aydin, Turkey. erkankaracan@karabuk.edu.tr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0808-5067

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHem-o-lok clips and endoloops are commonly used techniques for appendiceal stump closure during laparoscopic appendectomy. However, evidence regarding their relative safety and efficacy remains inconsistent. This meta-analysis compared clinical outcomes between the two techniques.

methodsPRISMA guidelines were followed. PubMed, Google Scholar, and other electronic databases were searched for comparative studies evaluating Hem-o-lok clips versus endoloops in laparoscopic appendectomy. Primary outcomes were intra-abdominal abscess and surgical site infection; secondary outcomes were operative time and hospital length of stay. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled estimates were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models.

resultsA total of 23 studies involving 4296 patients were included. No statistically significant differences were observed between the groups regarding surgical site infection (p = 0.112) or hospital length of stay (p = 0.355). Operative time was significantly shorter in the Hem-o-lok clip group (MD 5.41 min, 95% CI 3.40-7.42; p = 0.019). Intra-abdominal abscess formation was significantly less frequent in the Hem-o-lok group compared with the endoloop group (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.05-3.32; p = 0.035). Heterogeneity was low for intra-abdominal abscess and SSI analyses, whereas substantial heterogeneity was observed for operative time and LOS outcomes.

conclusionsBoth Hem-o-lok clips and endoloops are safe and effective methods for appendiceal stump closure. Hem-o-lok clips were associated with shorter operative time, while postoperative outcomes were largely comparable between techniques. Further randomized studies are warranted.

Indexed as

AppendectomyAppendicitisLaparoscopySurgical InstrumentsAbdominal AbscessHumansLength of StayOperative TimeSurgical Wound InfectionEndoloopHem-o-lok clipLaparoscopic appendectomyMeta-analysis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.