Trial reportWorld journal of gastroenterology2013
Single-incision vs three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective randomized study.
Trial report in World journal of gastroenterology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 6 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
36 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a current meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Pooled it
- Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is responsible for increased adverse events: results of a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Pooled it
- The use of expanding ports in laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery may cause more pain: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.Surgical endoscopy · 2017Pooled it
- Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with curved versus linear instruments assessed by systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Pooled it
- Single incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy outcomes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.PloS one · 2013Pooled it
- Higher cost of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy due to longer operating time. A study of opportunity cost based on meta-analysis.Il Giornale di chirurgiaPooled it
- Safety and feasibility of reduced-port robotic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a phase I/II clinical trial using the da Vinci Single Port(SP) robotic system.Scientific reports · 2023Trial
- Randomized controlled trial of single incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy with long-term follow-up.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2020Trial
- Comparison of postoperative pain at umbilical wound after conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy between transumbilical and infraumbilical incisions: a randomized control trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Trial
- A randomized controlled trial comparing post-operative pain in single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy.World journal of surgery · 2015Trial
- Prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing the use of a single-port device with that of a flexible endoscope with no other device for transumbilical cholecystectomy: LLATZER-FSIS pilot study.Surgical endoscopy · 2013Trial
- Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with inflexible laparoscopic instruments and laparoscopy: a single-center experience of 533 cases.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- The Effect of Dexamethasone Administration on Postoperative Pain Following Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.Advanced biomedical research · 2025Article
- Article
- Evidence-based surgery for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Surgery open science · 2022Article
- Analogies between medusa and single port surgery in gastroenterology and hepatology: A review.World journal of gastroenterology · 2021Review
- Article
- Is single port laparoscopic cholecystectomy superior to standard cholecystectomy in post-operative pain?Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2021Article
- A Comparative Study of Needlescopic Grasper Assisted Single Incision versus Three Port versus Pure Single Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2019Article
- Incisional hernia after robotic single-site cholecystectomy: a pilot study.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare the clinical outcome of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) with three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TPLC).
methodsBetween 2009 and 2011, one hundred and two patients with symptomatic benign gallbladder diseases were randomized to SILC (n = 49) or TPLC (n = 53). The primary end point was post operative pain score (at 6 h and 7 d). Secondary end points were blood loss, operation duration, overall complications, postoperative analgesic requirements, length of hospital stay, cosmetic result and total cost. Surgical techniques were standardized and all operations were performed by one experienced surgeon, who had performed more than 500 laparoscopic cholecystectomies.
resultsOne patient in the SILC group required conversion to two-port LC. There were no open conversions or major complications in either treatment groups. There were no differences in terms of estimated blood loss (mean ± SD, 14 ± 6.0 mL vs 15 ± 4.0 mL), operation duration (mean ± SD, 41.8 ± 17.0 min vs 38.5 ± 22.0 min), port-site complications (contusion at incision: 5 cases vs 4 cases and hematoma at incision: 2 cases vs 1 case), total cost (mean ± SD, 12 075 ± 1047 RMB vs 11 982 ± 1153 RMB) and hospital stay (mean ± SD, 1.0 ± 0.5 d vs 1.0 ± 0.2 d) , respectively. TPLC had a significantly worse visual analogue pain score at 8 h after surgery (mean ± SD, 3.5 ± 1.6 vs 2.0 ± 1.5), however, the scores were similar on day 7 (mean ± SD, 2.5 ± 1.4 vs 2.0 ± 1.3). Cosmetic satisfaction, as determined by a survey at 2 mo follow-up favored SILC (mean ± SD, 8 ± 0.4 vs 6 ± 0.2).
conclusionSILC is a safe and feasible approach in selected patients. The main advantages are a better cosmetic result and less pain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.