FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1926371034> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1926371034 endingPage "61" @default.
• W1926371034 startingPage "56" @default.
• W1926371034 abstract "Purpose: There are various techniques for securing the base of the appendix during performance of laparoscopic appendectomy. Many studies have reported that Endo-GIA is useful for securing the base of the appendix; however, it is costly. Many hospitals now use Endoloop ligature (ELL) for securing the base of the appendix. Many studies have demonstrated the many advantages of the Hem-o-lok clip (HLC) for securing the base of the appendix. The aim of this study is to compare the surgical outcomes of securing the base of the appendix between HLC and ELL during performance of laparoscopic appendectomy. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted for comparison between HLC and ELL for securing the base during performance of laparoscopic appendectomy. From May 2008 to October 2011, 102 patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy performed by a single surgeon. Thirty one patients were excluded for various reasons. In 38 patients, the base of the appendix was secured by HLC, and in 33 patients, ELL was applied. Data included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), cost of materials, preoperative white blood count (preoperative WBC), preoperative c-reactive protein (preoperative CRP), preoperative fever, operation time, hospital days, diameter of the appendiceal base, number of perforated appendicitis, and intraoperative or postoperative complication. Results: HLC was used in 38 patients, with a mean age of 36.4 years old. ELL was applied in 33 patients, with a mean age of 19.3 years old. Significant difference in age of patients was observed between the groups (p ＜0.001). The groups were comparable with regard to sex, BMI, preoperative WBC, preoperative CRP, preoperative fever, operation time, hospital stay, diameter of the appendiceal base, perforated appendicitis, and intraoperative or postoperative complication. The cost of six HLCs was 32,940 won, and that for one ELL was 29,610 won, therefore, there was no significant difference in the cost of material betw een the tw o groups of patients. Conclusion: Except for age, no difference was observed betw een the tw o groups. If a single HLC set is available for securing the base of the appendix, there will be a significant difference of the material cost between the two groups. ELL is more useful for securing the appendiceal base, with a larger diameter, which is inappropriate for use of HLC." @default.
• W1926371034 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1926371034 creator A5008960721 @default.
• W1926371034 creator A5043137954 @default.
• W1926371034 date "2013-09-15" @default.
• W1926371034 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W1926371034 title "Comparison of Clinical Outcomes between the Hem-o-lok Clip and Endoloop Ligature in Securing the Base of the Appendix" @default.
• W1926371034 cites W1747738917 @default.
• W1926371034 cites W1964228325 @default.
• W1926371034 cites W1969001880 @default.
• W1926371034 cites W1970113602 @default.
• W1926371034 cites W1978960885 @default.
• W1926371034 cites W1984960522 @default.
• W1926371034 cites W1985959466 @default.
• W1926371034 cites W2039658541 @default.
• W1926371034 cites W2040833723 @default.
• W1926371034 cites W2052214155 @default.
• W1926371034 cites W2061271731 @default.
• W1926371034 cites W2075594771 @default.
• W1926371034 cites W2076745981 @default.
• W1926371034 cites W2100957861 @default.
• W1926371034 cites W2109699640 @default.
• W1926371034 cites W2148296693 @default.
• W1926371034 cites W2416515080 @default.
• W1926371034 cites W2885290083 @default.
• W1926371034 cites W4236924871 @default.
• W1926371034 cites W4245054080 @default.
• W1926371034 cites W4375843579 @default.
• W1926371034 doi "https://doi.org/10.7602/jmis.2013.16.3.56" @default.
• W1926371034 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W1926371034 type Work @default.
• W1926371034 sameAs 1926371034 @default.
• W1926371034 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1926371034 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1926371034 hasAuthorship W1926371034A5008960721 @default.
• W1926371034 hasAuthorship W1926371034A5043137954 @default.
• W1926371034 hasBestOaLocation W19263710341 @default.
• W1926371034 hasConcept C134306372 @default.
• W1926371034 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W1926371034 hasConcept C2777998629 @default.
• W1926371034 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W1926371034 hasConcept C42058472 @default.
• W1926371034 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1926371034 hasConceptScore W1926371034C134306372 @default.
• W1926371034 hasConceptScore W1926371034C141071460 @default.
• W1926371034 hasConceptScore W1926371034C2777998629 @default.
• W1926371034 hasConceptScore W1926371034C33923547 @default.
• W1926371034 hasConceptScore W1926371034C42058472 @default.
• W1926371034 hasConceptScore W1926371034C71924100 @default.
• W1926371034 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W1926371034 hasLocation W19263710341 @default.
• W1926371034 hasOpenAccess W1926371034 @default.
• W1926371034 hasPrimaryLocation W19263710341 @default.
• W1926371034 hasRelatedWork W2002120878 @default.
• W1926371034 hasRelatedWork W2003938723 @default.
• W1926371034 hasRelatedWork W2047967234 @default.
• W1926371034 hasRelatedWork W2118496982 @default.
• W1926371034 hasRelatedWork W2416691549 @default.
• W1926371034 hasRelatedWork W2439875401 @default.
• W1926371034 hasRelatedWork W4238867864 @default.
• W1926371034 hasRelatedWork W4294335548 @default.
• W1926371034 hasRelatedWork W2519357708 @default.
• W1926371034 hasRelatedWork W2525756941 @default.
• W1926371034 hasVolume "16" @default.
• W1926371034 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1926371034 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1926371034 magId "1926371034" @default.
• W1926371034 workType "article" @default.