ArticleThe Indian journal of surgery2015
Comparison of Cosmetic Outcome Between Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy and Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Rural Indian Population: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Article in The Indian journal of surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a current meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Pooled it
- Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is responsible for increased adverse events: results of a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Pooled it
- Deep neuromuscular blockade improves surgical conditions during low-pressure pneumoperitoneum laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Trial
- Paratubal Cystectomy in a Pregnant Woman Using the Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgery (SILS) Technique.Case reports in obstetrics and gynecology · 2022Article
- Gasless single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2021Article
- Single-Port Laparoscopic Repair of Perforated Duodenal Ulcers.World journal of surgery · 2020Article
- Single-incision laparoscopy surgery: a systematic review.Electronic physician · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Persistent efforts are being made to reduce operative trauma and morbidity and to improve cosmesis following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The trend is to reduce the number of incisions, and thus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and natural orifice endoscopic surgery (NOTES) are becoming popular. There is a paucity of studies pertaining to cosmetic outcome after SILC and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy in rural Indian population. In the present study, the cosmetic outcome of SILC versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) in rural Indian population was evaluated. Sixty patients with gallstone disease were randomly assigned to two groups. In group A (n = 30), CLC was performed, while group B (n = 30) was subjected to SILC. The cosmetic outcome was evaluated using a body image questionnaire on the 7th and 30th postoperative days. On the 7th postoperative day, the body image score for SILC was 6.23 ± 0.89 and for CLC, 8.26 ± 1.08 (p < 0.0001), while the cosmetic score for SILC was 19.56 ± 1.07 and for CLC, 15 ± 1.20 (p < 0.0001). On the 30th postoperative day, the body image score for SILC was 5.50 ± 0.68 and for CLC, 8 ± 1.31 (p < 0.0001), while the cosmetic score for SILC was 21.13 ± 0.57 and for CLC, 15.63 ± 1.06 (p < 0.0001), which favored SILC over CLC. The patient perception and acceptance of SILC was better than that of CLC in terms of cosmetic outcome.
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.