ArticleJournal of the Korean Surgical Society2013
The comparison of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and three port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective randomized study.
Article in Journal of the Korean Surgical Society, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 17 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.
The Comparison of Single Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy and Three Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Study for The Safety of Single Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy With a Camera Holder Versus With a Camera Operator
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a current meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Pooled it
- Readmission to hospital following laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis.Anaesthesiology intensive therapy · 2020Pooled it
- Laparoscopic entry techniques.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 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
- 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
- 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
- Randomized controlled trial of single incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy with long-term follow-up.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2020Trial
- Outcomes and complications of three-incision versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Updates in surgery · 2026Review
- Review
- Article
- Is single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) dependent on the location of the tumor?BMC surgery · 2023Article
- Evidence-based surgery for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Surgery open science · 2022Article
- A Comparative Study of Needlescopic Grasper Assisted Single Incision versus Three-Port versus Pure Single Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2019Article
- Dual-Incision Laparoscopic Spleen-Preserving Distal Pancreatectomy: Merits Compared to the Conventional Method.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2019Article
- Evaluation of the result of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for gastrointestinal stromal tumors in the stomach.Surgical case reports · 2019Article
- Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for biliary tract disease.World journal of gastroenterology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeLaparoscopic techniques have allowed surgeons to perform complicated intra-abdominal surgery with minimal trauma. Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) was developed with the aim of reducing the invasiveness of conventional laparoscopy. In this study we aimed to compare results of SILS cholecystectomy and three port conventional laparoscopic (TPCL) cholecystectomy prospectively.
methodsIn this prospective study, 100 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallbladder disease were randomly allocated to SILS cholecystectomy (group 1) or TPCL cholecystectomy (group 2). Demographics, pathologic diagnosis, operating time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, complications, pain score, conversion rate, and satisfaction of cosmetic outcome were recorded.
resultsForty-four SILS cholesystectomies (88%) and 42 TPCL cholecystectomies (84%) were completed successfully. Conversion to open surgery was required for 4 cases in group 1 and 6 cases in group 2. Operating time was significantly longer in group 1 compared with group 2 (73 minutes vs. 48 minutes; P < 0.05). Higher pain scores were observed in group 1 versus group 2 in postoperative day 1 (P < 0.05). There was higher cosmetic satisfaction in group 1 (P < 0.05).
conclusionSILS cholecystectomy performed by experienced surgeons is at least as successful, feasible, effective and safe as a TPCL cholecystectomy. Surgeons performing SILS should have a firm foundation of advanced minimal access surgical skills and a cautious, gradated approach to attempt the various procedures. Prospective randomized studies comparing single access versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy, with large volumes and long-term follow-up, are needed to confirm our initial experience. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01772745.).
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.