Trial reportWorld journal of surgery2015
A randomized controlled trial comparing post-operative pain in single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Trial report in World journal of surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 8 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparison of single-incision and traditional laparoscopic surgery for the risk of incisional hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Updates in surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a current meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Pooled it
- Incidence of incisional hernias following single-incision versus traditional laparoscopic surgery: a meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2019Pooled 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: does it work? A systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Pooled 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
- Phase II clinical experience and long-term follow-up using the next-generation single-incision platform FMX314.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Trial
- Comparison of the Effect of Adding Dexmedetomidine Versus Dexamethasone to Bupivacaine in Transverse Abdominis Plane Block on Postoperative Pain Intensity in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.Anesthesiology and pain medicine · 2025Article
- Review
- Midline incisional hernia guidelines: the European Hernia Society.The British journal of surgery · 2023Article
- Review
- Evidence-based surgery for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Surgery open science · 2022Article
- Article
- True single-port cholecystectomy with ICG cholangiography through a single 15-mm trocar using the new surgical platform "symphonX": first human case study with a commercially available device.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Long-term incisional hernia rate after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is significantly higher than that after standard three-port laparoscopy: a cohort study.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2019Article
- SINGLE PORT LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY: TECHNICAL ASPECTS AND RESULTS.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2018Article
- Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for biliary tract disease.World journal of gastroenterology · 2016Review
- Risk factors for prolonged operative time in single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAn increasing body of evidence is being published about single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC), but there are no well-powered trials with an adequate evaluation of post-operative pain. This randomized trial compares SILC against four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with post-operative pain as the primary endpoint.
methodsHundred patients were randomized to either SILC (n = 50) or LC (n = 50). Exclusion criteria were (1) Acute cholecystitis; (2) ASA 3 or above; (3) Bleeding disorders; and (4) Previous open upper abdominal surgery. Patients and post-operative assessors were blinded to the procedure performed. The site and severity of pain were compared at 4 h, 24 h, 14 days and 6 months post-procedure using the visual analog scale; non-inferiority was assumed when the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval of the difference was above -1 and superiority when p ≤ 0.05.
resultsThe study arms were demographically similar. At 24 h post-procedure, SILC was associated with less pain at extra-umbilical sites (rest: p = 0.004; movement: p = 0.008). Pain data were inconclusive at 24 h at the umbilical site on movement; SILC was otherwise non-inferior for pain at all other points. Operating duration was longer in SILC (79.46 vs 58.88 min, p = 0.003). 8% of patients in each arm suffered complications (p = 1.000). Re-intervention rates, analgesic use, return to function, and patient satisfaction did not differ significantly.
conclusionsSILC has improved short-term pain outcomes compared to LC and is not inferior in both short-term and long-term pain outcomes. The operating time is longer, but remains feasible in routine surgical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25446490What 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.