↓ Skip to main content

Closure methods of the appendix stump for complications during laparoscopic appendectomy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Closure methods of the appendix stump for complications during laparoscopic appendectomy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006437.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mannu, Gurdeep S, Sudul, Maria K, Bettencourt-Silva, Joao H, Cumber, Elspeth, Li, Fangfang, Clark, Allan B, Loke, Yoon K

Abstract

Laparoscopic appendectomy is amongst the most common general surgical procedures performed in the developed world. Arguably, the most critical part of this procedure is effective closure of the appendix stump to prevent catastrophic intra-abdominal complications from a faecal leak into the abdominal cavity. A variety of methods to close the appendix stump are used worldwide; these can be broadly divided into traditional ligatures (such as intracorporeal or extracorporeal ligatures or Roeder loops) and mechanical devices (such as stapling devices, clips, or electrothermal devices). However, the optimal method remains unclear. To compare all surgical techniques now used for appendix stump closure during laparoscopic appendectomy. In June 2017, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 6) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 14 June 2017), Embase Ovid (1974 to 14 June 2017), Science Citation Index - Expanded (14 June 2017), China Biological Medicine Database (CBM), the World Health Organization International Trials Registry Platform search portal, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, the Chinese Clinical Trials Register, and the EU Clinical Trials Register (all in June 2017). We searched the reference lists of relevant publications as well as meeting abstracts and Conference Proceedings Citation Index to look for additional relevant clinical trials. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared mechanical appendix stump closure (stapler, clips, or electrothermal devices) versus ligation (Endoloop, Roeder loop, or intracorporeal knot techniques) for uncomplicated appendicitis. Two review authors identified trials for inclusion, collected data, and assessed risk of bias independently. We performed the meta-analysis using Review Manager 5. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We included eight randomised studies encompassing 850 participants. Five studies compared titanium clips versus ligature, two studies compared an endoscopic stapler device versus ligature, and one study compared an endoscopic stapler device, titanium clips, and ligature. In our analyses of primary outcomes, we found no differences in total complications (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.50, 8 RCTs, very low-quality evidence), intraoperative complications (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.55, 8 RCTs, very low-quality evidence), or postoperative complications (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.21 to 3.13, 8 RCTs, very low-quality evidence) between ligature and all types of mechanical devices. However, our analyses of secondary outcomes revealed that use of mechanical devices saved approximately nine minutes of total operating time when compared with use of a ligature (mean difference (MD) -9.04 minutes, 95% CI -12.97 to -5.11 minutes, 8 RCTs, very low-quality evidence). However, this finding did not translate into a clinically or statistically significant reduction in inpatient hospital stay (MD 0.02 days, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.17 days, 8 RCTs, very low-quality evidence). Available information was insufficient for reliable comparison of total hospital costs and postoperative pain/quality of life between the two approaches. Overall, evidence across all analyses was of very low quality, with substantial potential for confounding factors. Given the limitations of all studies in terms of bias and the low quality of available evidence, a clear conclusion regarding superiority of any one particular type of mechanical device over another is not possible. Evidence is insufficient at present to advocate omission of conventional ligature-based appendix stump closure in favour of any single type of mechanical device over another in uncomplicated appendicitis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 29%
Student > Postgraduate 2 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 14%
Unspecified 2 14%
Other 1 7%
Other 3 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 64%
Unspecified 4 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 June 2018.
All research outputs
#5,918,021
of 11,527,700 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,904
of 9,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,784
of 271,860 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#151
of 176 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,527,700 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,147 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 271,860 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 176 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.