Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 486

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy: Outcomes Comparison Based on a Large Administrative Database

Open access
Guller, Ulrich, Hervey, Sheleika, Purves, Harriett, Muhlbaier, Lawrence H., Peterson, Eric D., Eubanks, Steve, Pietrobon, Ricardo·2004·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

In Brief Objective: To compare length of hospital stay, in-hospital complications, in-hospital mortality, and rate of routine discharge between laparoscopic and open appendectomy based on a representative, nationwide database. Summary Background Data: Numerous single-institutional randomized clinical trials have assessed the efficacy of laparoscopic and open appendectomy. The results, however, are conflicting, and a consensus concerning the relative advantages of each procedure has not yet been reached. Methods: Patients with primary ICD-9 procedure codes for laparoscopic and open appendectomy were selected from the 1997 Nationwide Inpatient Sample, a database that approximates 20% of all US community hospital discharges. Multiple linear and logistic regression analyses were used to assess the risk-adjusted endpoints. Results: Discharge abstracts of 43,757 patients were used for our analyses. 7618 patients (17.4%) underwent laparoscopic and 36,139 patients (82.6%) open appendectomy. Patients had an average age of 30.7 years and were predominantly white (58.1%) and male (58.6%). After adjusting for other covariates, laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with shorter median hospital stay (laparoscopic appendectomy: 2.06 days, open appendectomy: 2.88 days, P < 0.0001), lower rate of infections (odds ratio [OR] = 0.5 [0.38, 0.66], P < 0.0001), decreased gastrointestinal complications (OR = 0.8 [0.68, 0.96], P = 0.02), lower overall complications (OR = 0.84 [0.75, 0.94], P = 0.002), and higher rate of routine discharge (OR = 3.22 [2.47, 4.46], P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Laparoscopic appendectomy has significant advantages over open appendectomy with respect to length of hospital stay, rate of routine discharge, and postoperative in-hospital morbidity. The objective of our investigation was to compare outcomes between laparoscopic and open appendectomy based on a large administrative database. Discharge abstracts of over 43,000 patients were used for this analysis. Laparoscopic appendectomy was found to have significant advantages over open appendectomy with respect to length of hospital stay, rate of routine discharge, and postoperative in-hospital morbidity.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.sla.0000103071.35986.c1

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 486

Metadata

Authors
Guller, U., Hervey, S., Purves, H., Muhlbaier, L. H., Peterson, E. D., Eubanks, S., & Pietrobon, R.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2004-01
Volume
239
Issue
1
Pages
43-52
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2071927228
Cited by
486
References
2
FWCI
22.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy: Outcomes Comparison Based on a Large Administrative Database. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.sla.0000103071.35986.c1
The paper
Guller, U., Hervey, S., Purves, H., Muhlbaier, L. H., Peterson, E. D., Eubanks, S., & Pietrobon, R. (2004). Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy: Outcomes Comparison Based on a Large Administrative Database. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000103071.35986.c1

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.