ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy2015
Tripartite comparison of single-incision and conventional laparoscopy in cholecystectomy: A multicenter trial.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2015. 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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a current meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Surgical endoscopy · 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
- 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
- A Comparative Study of Single Incision versus Conventional Four Ports Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2016Article
- Feasibility of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 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
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare the characteristics of two single-incision methods, and conventional laparoscopy in cholecystectomy, and demonstrate the safety and feasibility.
methodsThree hundred patients with gallstones or gallbladder polyps were admitted to two clinical centers from January 2013 to January 2014 and were randomized into three groups of 100: single-incision three-device group, X-Cone group, and conventional group. The operative time, intraoperative blood loss, complications, postoperative pain, cosmetic score, length of hospitalization, and hospital costs were compared, with a follow-up duration of 1 mo.
resultsA total of 142 males (47%) and 158 females (53%) were enrolled in this study. The population characteristics of these three groups is no significant differences exist in terms of age, sex, body mass index and American Society of Anesthesiology (P > 0.05). In results, there were no significant differences in blood loss, length of hospitalization, postoperative complications.The operative time in X-Cone group was significantly longer than other groups.There were significant differences in postoperative pain scores and cosmetic scores at diffent times after surgery (P < 0.05).
conclusionThis study shows that this two single-incision methods are safe and feasible. Both methods are superior to the conventional procedure in cosmetic and pain scores.
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.