Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24202712›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2014

A prospective, randomized, controlled, trial comparing occult-scar incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and classic three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Lei Zhang, Bijay Sah, Jing Ma, Changzhen Shang, Zejian Huang, Yajin Chen

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lei ZhangDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510120, Guangdong Province, China, zhanglei646@126.com.
Bijay Sah
Jing Ma
Changzhen Shang
Zejian Huang
Yajin Chen
Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study was designed to evaluate the outcome of laparoscopic cholecystectomy by comparing a new technique using occult-scar incision for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (OSLC) with classic three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). In the occult-scar incision, we moved the subcostal and subxiphoid trocar insertion sites to the suprapubic area so that operative scars were hidden in the pubic hairs and below umbilicus.

methodsBetween July 2009 and 2012, patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized to the OSLC or CLC approach after obtaining informed consent. Outcome was measured by operative time, operative complications, hospital length of stay, cost, analgesia required after surgery, and cosmetic outcomes. The patient satisfaction score (PSS) and visual analog score (VAS) also were used to evaluated the level of cosmetic result and postoperative pain.

resultsA total of 75 patients were randomized into CLC (n = 35) and OSLC (n = 40) groups. No patient was converted to an open procedure in either the CLC or OSLC group. No operative complications were reported within 30 days in either group. The PSS of 7 and 30 days after surgery were both significantly higher in the OSLC group than in the CLC group (5.8 ± 1.5 vs. 8.0 ± 1.1, P = 0.03; 6.5 ± 1.2 vs. 9.2 ± 0.8, P = 0.02). The VAS for pain was significantly lower in the OSLC group on postoperative day 3 compared with the CLC group (2.6 ± 1.2 vs. 6.3 ± 0.9, P = 0.01). There was no significant difference in operative time, hospital stay, and cost between the two groups.

conclusionsThe OSLC is a safe and feasible alternative compared with CLC in experienced hands, and it is superior for outcomes regarding pain control and cosmesis.

Indexed as

LaparoscopesPatient SatisfactionAdultCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicCicatrixEquipment DesignFeasibility StudiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGallbladder DiseasesHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePostoperative Pain

Identifiers

PMID24202712
OpenAlexW2053994386

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.