ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Clinical application research of internal traction-assisted suspended closure in endoscopic transcecal appendectomy.
Article 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.
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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic transcecal appendectomy (ETA) has gained increasing clinical adoption as a minimally invasive surgical approach. However, conventional appendiceal stump closure techniques present notable limitations due to their operational complexity. This technological constraint underscores the clinical need to develop optimized closure methodologies. In this study, we proposed an innovative "internal traction-assisted suspended closure (ITASC)" technique and conducted a multicenter retrospective comparative study to evaluate its clinical efficacy.
methodsData from patients who underwent ETA from December 2018 to March 2025 were included. This retrospective study evaluated key perioperative outcomes between the conventional closure cohort (n = 28) and the ITASC implementation group (n = 14). The primary outcome was the rate of successful closure. Secondary outcomes encompassed closure time, intraoperative blood loss, duration of postprocedural hospitalization and the incidence of postoperative adverse events.
resultsBoth groups achieved 100% closure success. No serious complications occurred with ITASC, whereas conventional sutures were associated with serious postoperative complications in 3/28 patients. ITASC significantly reduced closure time (12.29 vs. 18.29 min, p = 0.003) and lowered inflammatory markers: WBC (9.47 × 10
conclusionITASC and traditional closure were equally safe and effective for ETA. However, ITASC demonstrated lower severe complication rates, attenuated postoperative infection, and significantly faster closure with reduced inflammation. No differences existed in total operation time or hospitalization. Large-sample studies are needed to validate long-term safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42816639What 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.