Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23355161›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2013

Is single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy safe? Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Alberto Arezzo, Gitana Scozzari, Federico Famiglietti, Roberto Passera, Mario Morino

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Alberto ArezzoDepartment of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Corso Dogliotti 14, 10126 Turin, Italy. alberto.arezzo@mac.com
Gitana Scozzari
Federico Famiglietti
Roberto Passera
Mario Morino

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSingle-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is gaining popularity. It is not evident whether the benefits of this procedure overcome the potential increased risk. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare SILC with conventional multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MILC).

methodsData from randomized, controlled trials published up to December 2011 and comparing SILC versus MILC were extracted. The primary end point was overall morbidity. A fixed-effect model was applied to summarize the study outcomes in the meta-analysis, and a random-effect model was used in the sensitivity analysis. The outcome measures were relative risk (RR) and mean difference (MD); a RR of <1.0 or a negative MD indicated a more favorable outcome after SILC. Publication bias was assessed by a funnel plot, and heterogeneity was tested by the I (2) measure and subgroup analyses.

resultsA total of 12 trials (996 patients) were included. Mortality was nil in both treatment groups; the overall RR for morbidity was 1.36 (p = 0.098). The mean operating time was 47.2 min for MILC and 58.1 min for SILC (MD 9.47 min; p < 0.001). The visual analog scale pain score at 24 h after surgery was 2.96 in MILC and 2.34 in SILC (MD -0.64; p = 0.058), but sensitivity analysis of the four studies deemed at low risk of bias for pain assessment, according to blinding and postoperative analgesic protocols, showed significance at -0.43 points (95 % confidence interval -0.87 to 0.00; p = 0.049). Cosmetic outcome scored better in the SILC group, with its standardized MD being equal to 1.16 (95 % confidence interval 0.57 to 1.75; p < 0.001).

conclusionsIn selected patients, SILC has similar overall morbidity compared with MILC; further, it results in better cosmetic satisfaction and reduced postoperative pain despite longer operative time.

Indexed as

Cholecystectomy, LaparoscopicEstheticsHumansOperative TimePostoperative PainRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicVisual Analog Scale

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.