SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2013
Is single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy safe? Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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.
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
50 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for single-incision cholecystectomy: an updated systematic review.Updates in surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Incidence of incisional hernias following single-incision versus traditional laparoscopic surgery: a meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2019Pooled it
- Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is responsible for increased adverse events: results of a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Pooled it
- Minilaparoscopic versus single incision cholecystectomy for the treatment of cholecystolithiasis: a meta-analysis and systematic review.BMC surgery · 2017Pooled it
- Single-incision laparoscopic surgery through the umbilicus is associated with a higher incidence of trocar-site hernia than conventional laparoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2016Pooled it
- Single incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy outcomes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.PloS one · 2013Pooled it
- Multicenter, randomized single-port versus multiport laparoscopic surgery (SIMPLE) trial in colon cancer: an interim analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Trial
- Randomized Trial of Immediate Postoperative Pain Following Single-incision Versus Traditional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.Chinese medical journal · 2015Trial
- A randomized controlled trial comparing post-operative pain in single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy.World journal of surgery · 2015Trial
- Application of deep learning for surgical decision support during single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Exploration of umbilical hernia incidence and etiology in 753 cases of single-incision laparoscopic surgery: a retrospective analysis.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Minimally Invasive Rectal Surgery: Current Status and Future Perspectives in the Era of Digital Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Evolution of minimally invasive cholecystectomy: a narrative review.BMC surgery · 2024Review
- Retrospective multi-center study of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy: after-hours surgery and business-hours surgery outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Observational
- Article
- Systematic Review of Utilized Ports in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Pushing the Boundaries.Minimally invasive surgery · 2024Review
- Single-site robotic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2023Review
- Review
- Laparoscopic Hartmann's Reversal: Application of a Single-Port Approach Through the Colostomy Site.Annals of coloproctology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
23355161What 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.