ArticleUlusal cerrahi dergisi2014
A comparison of single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and an alternative technique without a suspension suture.
Article in Ulusal cerrahi dergisi, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evidence-based surgery for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Surgery open science · 2022Article
- Is the fourth port routinely required for laparoscopic cholecystectomy? Our three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy experience.Irish journal of medical science · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMany surgeons face difficulties during single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) surgery and are forced to use an additional port. We compared the results of a technique that we developed with SILC. MATERIAL AND
methodsFifty-four patients who were diagnosed with chronic cholelithiasis were prospectively randomized and divided into two groups. An additional 5-mm port (MCAP: with an additional port using a multi-channel device through the umbilicus) was placed in the subxiphoid area instead of a transabdominal suspension suture in one group of patients. The other group was operated on with the SILC technique. The demographic and surgical data of the patients were compared.
resultsThe MCAP technique shortened the surgery duration by more than half (MCAP: 35.0±12.3, SILC: 79.1±27.7 min) (p<0.05). No difference was found between the two methods in terms of estimated blood loss, length of hospitalization, postoperative day 1 and 7 visual analog scale scores, need for analgesia in the postoperative period, and rate of changing to another technique due to inadequacy of the surgical technique.
conclusionMCAP is as safe as SILC for cholecystectomy and is easier for the surgeon to perform.
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.