Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22173546›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2012

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) vs. conventional multiport cholecystectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

S R Markar, A Karthikesalingam, S Thrumurthy, L Muirhead, J Kinross, P Paraskeva

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03018964 (A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Study for The Safety of Single Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy With a Camera Holder Versus With a Camera Operator), which is not on this map. Cited by 91 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
91citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
26.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03018964 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Study for The Safety of Single Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy With a Camera Holder Versus With a Camera Operator

TypeinterventionalSponsorSeoul National University HospitalRan2020 to 2022Enrolled272ConditionsCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicArmsSolo surgery, operation with a camera operator in SILC
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

91 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 195 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Fewer-than-four ports versus four ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. COMPARISON BETWEEN INCIDENCE OF INCISIONAL HERNIA IN LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY AND BY SINGLE PORT.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2018
    Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Review

31 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

S R MarkarAcademic Surgical Unit, St. Mary's Hospital, Praed Street, London, W2 1NY, UK. sheraz_markar@hotmail.com
A Karthikesalingam
S Thrumurthy
L Muirhead
J Kinross
P Paraskeva
St George's Hospital · GBSt Mary's Hospital · GBSt. Mary's Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSingle-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has gained increasing attention due to the potential to maximize the benefits of laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this systematic review and pooled analysis was to compare clinical outcome following SILS and standard multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the treatment of gallstone-related disease.

methodsAn electronic search of Embase and Medline databases for articles from 1966 to 2011 was performed. Publications were included if they were randomised controlled studies in which patients underwent either single-incision or multiport cholecystectomy. The primary outcome measures for the meta-analysis were postoperative complications and postoperative pain score [visual analogue scale (VAS) on the day of surgery]. Secondary outcome measures were operating time and length of hospital stay. Weighted mean difference was calculated for the effect size of SILS on continuous variables, and pooled odds ratios were calculated for discrete variables.

resultsIn total, 375 cholecystectomy operations from 7 randomised controlled trials were included, 195 by single-incision (SILS) and 180 by conventional multiport. Operating time was significantly longer in the SILS group compared to the standard multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy group (weighted mean difference = 2.13; P = 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications, postoperative pain score (VAS), or the length of hospital stay between the two groups.

conclusionThe results of this meta-analysis demonstrate that single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a safe procedure for the treatment of uncomplicated gallstone disease, with postoperative outcome similar to that of standard multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Future high-powered randomized studies should be focused on elucidating subtle differences in postoperative complications, reported postoperative pain, and cosmesis following SILS cholecystectomy in more severe biliary disease.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementPostoperative ComplicationsPostoperative PainTime FactorsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID22173546
OpenAlexW2025367169

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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 OpenQuestion graph.