Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26328034›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery2015

Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A non-randomized, age-matched single center trial.

Yoen Tk van der Linden, Koop Bosscha, Hubert A Prins, Daniel J Lips

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of gastrointestinal surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06314399 (Predictive Factors Associated with Bile Culture Positivity and PhenotypiCal AntIbiogram Resistance Patterns in Patients Taken to LaparOscopic Cholecystectomy), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06314399 completednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Predictive Factors Associated with Bile Culture Positivity and PhenotypiCal AntIbiogram Resistance Patterns in Patients Taken to LaparOscopic Cholecystectomy (BACILO): a Protocol for a Prediction Model Study

TypeobservationalSponsorHospital Universitario Mayor MéderiRan2024 to 2024Enrolled703ConditionsBiliary Infection, Antibiotic Resistant StrainArmsBile culture and phenotypic antibiogram resistance test
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. New advantageous tool in single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the needle grasper.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Yoen Tk van der LindenYoen TK van der Linden, Koop Bosscha, Hubert A Prins, Daniel J Lips, Department of Surgery, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 5223 GZ 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
Koop BosschaYoen TK van der Linden, Koop Bosscha, Hubert A Prins, Daniel J Lips, Department of Surgery, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 5223 GZ 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
Hubert A PrinsYoen TK van der Linden, Koop Bosscha, Hubert A Prins, Daniel J Lips, Department of Surgery, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 5223 GZ 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
Daniel J LipsYoen TK van der Linden, Koop Bosscha, Hubert A Prins, Daniel J Lips, Department of Surgery, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 5223 GZ 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
Creative Research Enterprises (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo compare the safety of single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomies with standard four-port cholecystectomies.

methodsBetween January 2011 and December 2012 datas were gathered from 100 consecutive patients who received a single-port cholecystectomy. Patient baseline characteristics of all 100 single-port cholecystectomies were collected (body mass index, age, etc.) in a database. This group was compared with 100 age-matched patients who underwent a conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the same period. Retrospectively, per- and postoperative data were added. The two groups were compared to each other using independent t-tests and χ(2)-tests, P values below 0.05 were considered significantly different.

resultsNo differences were found between both groups regarding baseline characteristics. Operating time was significantly shorter in the total single-port group (42 min vs 62 min, P < 0.05); in procedures performed by surgeons the same trend was seen (45 min vs 59 min, P < 0.05). Peroperative complications between both groups were equal (3 in the single-port group vs 5 in the multiport group; P = 0.42). Although not significant less postoperative complications were seen in the single-port group compared with the multiport group (3 vs 9; P = 0.07). No statistically significant differences were found between both groups with regard to length of hospital stay, readmissions and mortality.

conclusionSingle-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy has the potential to be a safe technique with a low complication rate, short in-hospital stay and comparable operating time. Single-port cholecystectomy provides the patient an almost non-visible scar while preserving optimal quality of surgery. Further prospective studies are needed to prove the safety of the single-port technique.

Indexed as

CholecystectomyFeasibilityLaparoscopyMinimal invasiveSafetySingle-port

Identifiers

PMID26328034
PMCPMC4550841
OpenAlexW2402958682

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.