ArticleBMC pediatrics2025
Incidental appendectomy during laparotomy for idiopathic intussusception in children: a dual-center retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe role of incidental appendectomy (IA) during surgery for idiopathic intussusception in children remains controversial. This study evaluated the potential benefits and risks of performing IA during laparotomy.
methodsWe performed a dual-center retrospective cohort study of children who underwent open reduction for idiopathic intussusception (2014-2021). Patients were grouped by whether IA was performed. Primary outcomes were perioperative complications (PCs) and recurrent intussusception (RI); secondary outcomes were operative time, time to postoperative oral intake (PO time), length of stay (LOS), and hospitalization cost. Univariable and multivariable analyses were applied, with subgroup analysis for ileocolic cases.
resultsA total of 177 children were included, of whom 114 underwent IA and 63 did not. Baseline demographics were similar, but non-IA patients had more air enema attempts (median 2 vs. 1; P < 0.001) and a higher proportion of ileocolic intussusception (85.7% vs. 69.3%; P < 0.001). Intraoperatively, red or swollen appendices were more frequently removed (86.0% vs. 3.2%). Histopathology revealed acute inflammation in 60%, chronic inflammation in 25%, and no abnormalities in 15%. Rates of PCs (11.4% vs. 14.3%) and RI (6.1% vs. 11.1%) did not differ significantly between groups. In adjusted analyses, IA was associated with longer operative time (exp(β) = 1.292, 95% CI: 1.048 - 1.593; P = 0.016) and higher total costs (exp(β) = 1.350, 95% CI: 1.176 - 1.550; P < 0.001), without significant effects on PO time or LOS. Subgroup analysis of ileocolic cases (n = 133) yielded consistent results.
conclusionsIn pediatric idiopathic intussusception, IA did not decrease recurrence or perioperative complications but prolonged surgery and increased costs. As most resected appendices showed only minor inflammatory changes, routine IA should be reconsidered. Prospective multicenter studies are needed to validate these findings and guide surgical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.