FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2032959265> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2032959265 endingPage "282" @default.
• W2032959265 startingPage "282" @default.
• W2032959265 abstract "See Article on Page 304-308The open appendectomy, which was described first by McBurney [1] in 1894, has been accepted as the gold standard of an appendectomy for around 100 years. Furthermore, since its introduction by Semm [2] in 1983, the laparoscopic appendectomy has been conducted more frequently than the open appendectomy due to its advantages of being minimally invasive and having a shorter length of stay, a faster return of bowel function, decreased use of narcotics and lower rates of wound complications. In addition, much attention has been paid to recent remarkable innovative developments and improvements in laparoscopic equipment, instruments and techniques.As emphasis has focused more on minimizing the surgical technique utilized to access the pathology and on the exponential development of therapeutic endoscopy, surgical procedures that enter the peritoneum through hollow visceras that can be accessed via natural body openings, precluding skin incision, have been developed. The new approaches, named natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), aim to further limit treatment morbidity, but studies addressing these approaches have yet to be initiated because the clinical techniques for these approaches are still being developed. One of the most critical issues in NOTES when it is applied to humans is whether to securely close the extraction site of an organ such as the stomach, vagina, or rectum. If the closure fails, serious morbidities such as intraperitoneal infection or fistula may arise. NOTES can be performed as a pure procedure involving one portal of entry or as a combined procedure involving use of multiple body openings. However, based predominantly on experimental results, pure NOTES should be actively pursued as a research topic until its safety has been proven. NOTES can also be performed as a hybrid procedure in conjunction with conventional transabdominal ports. Closely related to NOTES is the development of procedures performed through a solitary small transabdominal incision. These procedures have been referred to as single-port access surgery, single-port laparoscopy surgery, single-incision laparoscopy surgery (SILS), or laparoendoscopic single-site surgery; consensus on the most appropriate name for the approach has not been achieved.Since the first report of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for acute appendicitis by Rispoli et al. [3] in 2002, it has been proposed as the next evolution in minimally invasive surgery. However, evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of this innovative approach is limited. Nevertheless, the increased interest in single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) has seemed to be primarily focused on better cosmesis (scarless abdominal surgery performed through an umbilical incision), less incisional pain, and conversion to standard multiport laparoscopic surgery if needed. SILA also has several disadvantages and limitations, such as the restricted degrees of freedom of movement, the number of ports that that can be used, and the proximity of the instruments to each other during the operation-all of which increase the complexity and the technical challenges of the operation. Many of these difficulties can be related to the technique of port placement and the utilization of instruments during single-incision laparoscopic surgery.In 2011, St Peter et al. [5] reported the results of their prospective randomized trial which compared a single-incision to a standard 3-port laparoscopic appendectomy. In that trial, the authors found that operative time, doses of narcotics, surgical difficultly and hospital charges were greater with the single-site approach. Also, the mean operative time was 5 minutes longer for the single-site group. This year, Gill et al. [6] reviewed nine studies that compared the SILA and the conventional laparoscopic appendectomy and found no significant differences in operative time, length of stay, pain scores, conversion rates, and complication rates between the SILA and the conventional laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis in adults.Currently in Korea, the single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy has been growing in popularity, and several case series have been reported. In this issue, Comparative Study of a Single-Incision Laparoscopic and a Conventional Laparoscopic Appendectomy for the Treatment of Acute Appendicitis is being published. Kang et al. [4] analyzed 112 SILS and 105 conventional laparoscopic appendectomies. In the study, the mean operative time in the SILS group was 65.88 ± 22.74 minutes whereas that in the LA group was 61.70 ± 22.27 minutes (P = 0.276). Although the difference was not statistically significant, the longer (about 4 minutes) operation time in the SILS group was comparable to that found in a recently reported randomized controlled trial in which the mean operation time was 5 minutes longer [5]. Also, the present study demonstrated no significant differences in mean hospital stay, use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and wound infection between the two groups' the results being comparable to those of a systematic review of previously reported comparative studies [6]. The authors used a single trocar and two latex tubes, and they expected a cost savings and reduced interference by using their own system. They also advocated that the SILS appendectomy might have better cosmetic results. However, the authors could not provide any objective evidence to support their suggestions. These limitations came from the nature of retrospective nonrandomized comparative studies. Well-designed prospective trials are needed to develop more solid evidence and objective measuring tools for assessing cosmetic outcomes and patient satisfaction.Single-port surgery is gaining momentum and may represent the next frontier in minimally invasive surgery for various gastrointestinal diseases. Although many unanswered questions persist, surgeons should maintain their pioneering spirit and evaluate these new approaches carefully and scientifically." @default.
• W2032959265 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2032959265 creator A5047165960 @default.
• W2032959265 date "2012-01-01" @default.
• W2032959265 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2032959265 title "Single-Incision Laparoscopic Appendectomy" @default.
• W2032959265 cites W1986766579 @default.
• W2032959265 cites W2002823244 @default.
• W2032959265 cites W2083601238 @default.
• W2032959265 cites W2329757559 @default.
• W2032959265 cites W3150932654 @default.
• W2032959265 cites W4236924871 @default.
• W2032959265 doi "https://doi.org/10.3393/jksc.2012.28.6.282" @default.
• W2032959265 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/3548140" @default.
• W2032959265 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23346504" @default.
• W2032959265 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W2032959265 type Work @default.
• W2032959265 sameAs 2032959265 @default.
• W2032959265 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W2032959265 countsByYear W20329592652015 @default.
• W2032959265 countsByYear W20329592652016 @default.
• W2032959265 countsByYear W20329592652018 @default.
• W2032959265 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2032959265 hasAuthorship W2032959265A5047165960 @default.
• W2032959265 hasBestOaLocation W20329592652 @default.
• W2032959265 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2032959265 hasConcept C2780047204 @default.
• W2032959265 hasConcept C61434518 @default.
• W2032959265 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2032959265 hasConceptScore W2032959265C141071460 @default.
• W2032959265 hasConceptScore W2032959265C2780047204 @default.
• W2032959265 hasConceptScore W2032959265C61434518 @default.
• W2032959265 hasConceptScore W2032959265C71924100 @default.
• W2032959265 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W2032959265 hasLocation W20329592651 @default.
• W2032959265 hasLocation W20329592652 @default.
• W2032959265 hasLocation W20329592653 @default.
• W2032959265 hasLocation W20329592654 @default.
• W2032959265 hasOpenAccess W2032959265 @default.
• W2032959265 hasPrimaryLocation W20329592651 @default.
• W2032959265 hasRelatedWork W2002120878 @default.
• W2032959265 hasRelatedWork W2003938723 @default.
• W2032959265 hasRelatedWork W2047967234 @default.
• W2032959265 hasRelatedWork W2118496982 @default.
• W2032959265 hasRelatedWork W2364998975 @default.
• W2032959265 hasRelatedWork W2390961722 @default.
• W2032959265 hasRelatedWork W2439875401 @default.
• W2032959265 hasRelatedWork W4238867864 @default.
• W2032959265 hasRelatedWork W2519357708 @default.
• W2032959265 hasRelatedWork W2525756941 @default.
• W2032959265 hasVolume "28" @default.
• W2032959265 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2032959265 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2032959265 magId "2032959265" @default.
• W2032959265 workType "article" @default.