Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23519495›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2013

Patient-reported outcomes after single-incision versus traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized prospective trial.

Kimberly M Brown, B Todd Moore, G Brent Sorensen, Conrad H Boettger, Fengming Tang, Phil G Jones, Daniel J Margolin

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Fewer-than-four ports versus four ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Kimberly M BrownSaint Luke's Hospital of Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA. kim.brown@utmb.edu
B Todd Moore
G Brent Sorensen
Conrad H Boettger
Fengming Tang
Phil G Jones
Daniel J Margolin

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSingle-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is a newer approach that may be a safe alternative to traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TLC) based on retrospective and small prospective studies. As the demand for single-incision surgery may be driven by patient perceptions of benefits, we designed a prospective randomized study using patient-reported outcomes as our end points.

methodsPatients deemed candidates for either SILC or TLC were offered enrollment in the study. After induction of anesthesia, patients were randomized to SILC or TLC. Preoperative characteristics and operative data were recorded, including length of stay (LOS). Pain scores in recovery and for 48 h and satisfaction with wound appearance at 2 and 4 weeks were reported by patients. We used the gastrointestinal quality of life index (GIQLI) survey preoperatively and at 2 and 4 weeks postoperatively to assess recovery. Procedural and total hospital costs per case were abstracted from hospital billing systems.

resultsMean age of the study group was 44.1 years (±14.8), 87% were Caucasian, and 77% were female, with no difference between groups. Operative times were longer for SILC (median = 57 vs. 47 min, p = 0.008), but mean LOS was similar (6.8 ± 4.2 h SILC vs. 6.2 ± 4.8 h TLC, p = 0.59). Operating room cost and encounter cost were similar. GIQLI scores were not significantly different preoperatively or at 2 or 4 weeks postoperatively. Patients reported higher satisfaction with wound appearance at 2 weeks with SILC. There were no differences in pain scores in recovery or in the first 48 h, although SILC patients required significantly more narcotic in recovery (19 mg morphine equivalent vs. 11.5, p = 0.03).

conclusionsSILC is a longer operation but can be done at the same cost as TLC. Recovery and pain scores are not significantly different. There may be an improvement in patient satisfaction with wound appearance. Both procedures are valid approaches to cholecystectomy.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicFemaleHospital CostsHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePain MeasurementPatient SatisfactionProspective StudiesQuality of LifeSingle-Blind MethodTreatment Outcome

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.