Trial reportInternational surgery
One, two, or three ports in laparoscopic cholecystectomy?
Trial report in International surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with curved versus linear instruments assessed by systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Pooled it
- Evidence-based surgery for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Surgery open science · 2022Article
- Combined laparoscopic ovariectomy and laparoscopic-assisted gastropexy utilizing a 2-port technique in 10 dogs.The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne · 2021Article
- Is the fourth port routinely required for laparoscopic cholecystectomy? Our three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy experience.Irish journal of medical science · 2016Article
- Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A non-randomized, age-matched single center trial.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has been compared with 3- or 4-port LC. To our knowledge, there are no studies comparing the 3-, 2-, and 1-port techniques. Patients were randomized into 3 groups: LC 1-port using SILS, LC 2-port using a laparoscope with a working channel, and LC 3-port using the standard ports. Pain was evaluated at recovery, 4 hours, 24 hours, day 5, and day 8, using an analog visual scale. Homogenous groups in their demographic characteristics; all confirmed gallbladder lithiasis. At recovery, there was less pain in group 1 (P = 0.002); at 4 hours pain was similar in all groups (P = 0.899); at 24 hours there was less pain in groups 2 and 3 (P = 0.031); and at days 5 and 8 there was marginal (P = 0.053) and significant (P = 0.003) relevance. In terms of pain perception, LC performed through 1 port does not offer advantages when compared with 2 or 3 ports. More clinical trials are needed to confirm these data.
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.