ArticleWiener klinische Wochenschrift2012
Conventional laparoscopy vs. single port surgery from a patient's point of view: influence of demographics and body mass index.
Article in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient reported outcomes in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2019Article
- Patient-Reported Outcomes for Acute Gallstone Pathology.World journal of surgery · 2017Article
- Turkish surgeons' experiences and perception about single-incision laparoscopic surgery.Ulusal cerrahi dergisi · 2016Article
- Reduced port laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2016Review
- Prospective assessment of trocar-specific morbidity in laparoscopy.World journal of surgery · 2014Article
- Experience of single-incision laparoscopy in children.Journal of minimal access surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsSingle port surgery (SP) using a transumbilical approach is gaining more popularity, but who is the driving force behind this development: surgeons, industry, or patients? We evaluated patient's perception in conjunction with demographic data and body mass index (BMI) concerning conventional (multiport) and single port laparoscopy. PATIENTS AND
methodsSurgical patients were surveyed preoperatively and demographic data was recorded. Using the example of cholecystectomy, open surgery (OP), conventional laparoscopy (CL), and SP was explained. Participants were asked to rate importance of abstract items using a 5-point Likert scale (1: extremely important; 5: not important at all), decide between CL and SP and give reasons for their decision.
resultsOne hundred and fifty (79 females, 52.7 %) patients were surveyed. One hundred and six (70.7 %) would prefer SP. Abstract items such as complications (1.29 ± 0.835) and surgeon's experience (1.23 ± 0.673) were rated higher than cosmesis (2.64 ± 1.398), length of hospital stay (2.13 ± 1.190), or cost of hospitalization (3.06 ± 1.428). Educational status and experience with prior surgery had no influence on decision making but especially younger patients more often decide in favor of SP (p = 0.007). In addition, more females (p = 0.254) and obese (p = 0.214) patients would opt for SP without reaching statistical significance. Superior cosmesis and reduced postoperative pain were the main arguments. However, only 11.1 % of obese patients stated that cosmesis is a reasonable argument to favor SP whereas 56.4 % of patients with a normal weight did (p < 0.001).
conclusionThe majority of patients surveyed would prefer SP because of potential benefits such as superior cosmesis and reduced postoperative pain. Prior surgery and educational status had no influence on decision making whereas slightly more female and obese and especially younger patients are prone to SP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23179437What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.