Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26958049›Full record

ArticleJournal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences2015

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomized clinical trial study.

Najmeh Dabbagh, Ahmadreza Soroosh, Zhamak Khorgami, Abolfazl Shojaeifard, Mehdi Jafari, Ali Ghorbani Abdehgah, Hossein Mahmudzade

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Laparoscopic entry techniques.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors.

Najmeh DabbaghDepartment of Surgery, Research Center for Improvement of Surgical Outcomes and Procedures, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Ahmadreza SorooshDepartment of Surgery, Research Center for Improvement of Surgical Outcomes and Procedures, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Zhamak KhorgamiDepartment of Surgery, Research Center for Improvement of Surgical Outcomes and Procedures, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Abolfazl ShojaeifardDepartment of Surgery, Research Center for Improvement of Surgical Outcomes and Procedures, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mehdi JafariDepartment of Surgery, Research Center for Improvement of Surgical Outcomes and Procedures, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Ali Ghorbani AbdehgahDepartment of Surgery, Research Center for Improvement of Surgical Outcomes and Procedures, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Hossein MahmudzadeDepartment of Surgery, Research Center for Improvement of Surgical Outcomes and Procedures, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurgical technique using small-diameter instruments and single-incision laparoscopy are two new options for less invasive laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). In this study, we have compared mini-LC (MLC) with single-incision LC (SILC). MATERIALS AND

methodsThis study is a randomized clinical trial conducted on the patients diagnosed with symptomatic cholelithiasis who underwent LC. Forty patients were randomized to two equal groups of MLC and SILC. They were compared in terms of demographic data, operation time, and surgical complications.

resultsBaseline characteristics were similar in two groups. Operation time in MLC was significantly shorter than that in SILC (45.1 ± 69 min vs 63.75 ± 7.57 min, P-value < 0.001). Also, the total length of the wound in SILC group was shorter than that in MLC group (P-value < 0.003). Postoperative pain scores were similar in two groups. Hospital stay was shorter in MLC (1.2 ± 0.6 days vs 1.6 ± 0.8 days, P < 0.021). There was no difference in postoperative complications in two groups.

conclusionMLC because of less operation time is preferred than SILC. Also, by subjective measures, it was a more comfortable method compared to SILC.

Indexed as

Cholecystectomyincision laparoscopic cholecystectomylaparoscopicmini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC)operation timesingle-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC)

Identifiers

PMID26958049
PMCPMC4766821

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.