Trial reportSurgery today2016
Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed by a single surgeon: findings of a randomized trial.
Trial report in Surgery today, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03631160 (Effect of Transcutaneous Acupoint Electrical Stimulation on Postoperative Spontaneous Voiding for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Patients：A Randomized Clinical Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 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.
Effect of Transcutaneous Acupoint Electrical Stimulation on Postoperative Spontaneous Voiding for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Patients：A Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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
- Review
- Single Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in a Patient with Situs Inversus Totalis: A Case Report.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2019Article
- SINGLE PORT LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY: TECHNICAL ASPECTS AND RESULTS.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2018Article
- Omitting perioperative urinary catheterization in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a single-institution experience.Surgery today · 2017Observational
- Clinical value and pitfalls of fluorescent cholangiography during single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Surgery today · 2016Article
- Single-incision laparoscopic surgery as a teaching procedure: a single-center experience of more than 2100 procedures.Surgery today · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposesTraditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TLC) is performed widely; however, single-incision cholecystectomy (SILC) has been proposed as a better and less traumatic procedure.
methodsIn this prospective, double-blinded, randomized study, patients were randomized to undergo either elective SILC or TLC. The primary endpoint was the level of pain after surgery and the secondary endpoints were complications, cosmetic outcomes, and patient satisfaction.
resultsA total of 59 patients were enrolled (SILC, n = 30; TLC, n = 29). The median operative time was longer for the SILC group (55 vs. 40 min; P < 0.0001). Patients in the SILC group had a lower median VAS pain score 4 h after surgery (20 mm for the TLC group vs. 15 mm for the SILC group). Complications were distributed equally. Twenty-eight of the 30 patients in the SILC group vs. 23 of the 29 patients in the TLC group were very satisfied with their operation (P = 0.032). The cosmetic results of SILC were better than those of TLC, with visible scars in 21 patients from the TLC group vs. 3 patients from the SILC group (P = 0.0001).
conclusionsWe found SILC to be a safe, feasible, and adaptable surgical technique. The pain scores at 4 h were significantly better for SILC than for TLC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26036221What 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.