Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24879143›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2014

Outcomes of laparoscopic cholecystectomy done with surgical energy versus done without surgical energy: a prospective-randomized control study.

Brij B Agarwal, Nayan Agarwal, Krishna A Agarwal, Karan Goyal, Juhil D Nanvati, Kumar Manish, Himanshu Pandey, Shruti Sharma, Kamran Ali, Sheikh T Mustafa and 3 more

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 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Fast Track Surgery-Minimizing Side Effects of Surgery.The Indian journal of surgery · 2015
    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

13 authors.

Brij B AgarwalDepartment of General and Laparoscopic Surgery, Ganga Ram Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research (GRIPMER), New Delhi, India, endosurgeon@gmail.com.
Nayan Agarwal
Krishna A Agarwal
Karan Goyal
Juhil D Nanvati
Kumar Manish
Himanshu Pandey
Shruti Sharma
Kamran Ali
Sheikh T Mustafa
Manish K Gupta
Satish Saluja
Sneh Agarwal

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveLaparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), a gold standard procedure can be done without energized dissection (ED). We did a randomized study for the outcomes of LC done with ED or without ED, i.e., with cold dissection (CD). METHODS AND PROCEDURES: At a tertiary level institution, open-ended prospective-randomized control study was conducted between September 2008 and June 2013. Consecutive, unselected, consenting candidates for LC were enrolled following standard ethics, informed consent, anesthesia, and clinical pathway protocol. They were allocated to control group (LC with ED) or study group (LC with CD, as per our published technique with the option for rescue ED). The study points were based upon Clavien-Dindo grading of postoperative complications. They were either, peri-operative events potentially affecting, hospital stay (Grade I) or Grade II-V, e.g., peri-operative hemodynamic instability, needing intervention/blood transfusion, injury to biliary ducts/hollow viscous, postoperative biliary leak, postoperative re-intervention, re-hospitalization, mortality, and any adverse event during a 90-day follow-up period. The data were prospectively collected in an integrated "hospital information system" that could be retrieved only by independent external coordinators.

resultsDemographics, co-morbidities, and gallbladder inflammation profile of the control group (n = 361) and study group (n = 384) were comparable. There was no rescue ED usage in the study group. Hospital stay (Grade I adverse outcome dependent) was longer, i.e., 1.6 ± 1.03 in the control versus 1.35 ± 1.2 days in the study group (p < 0.001). Grade II-IV complications were significantly more (p < 0.009) in control group. There was one common bile duct (CBD) injury in each group. The index bilio-enteric anastomosis for CBD injury in control group failed and needed a revision with multiple interventions. There was one grade V adverse outcome, i.e., mortality in the control group.

conclusionAvoiding the use of ED in LC is associated with better outcomes.

Indexed as

Cholecystectomy, LaparoscopicCholecystitisCommon Bile DuctDissectionFemaleHumansIntraoperative ComplicationsLength of StayPostoperative ComplicationsPostoperative PeriodProspective StudiesUltrasonic Therapy

Identifiers

PMID24879143

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.