Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27042535›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2016

Open Versus Closed Laparoscopy: Yet an Unresolved Controversy.

Milan Kumar Taye, Syed Abul Fazal, David Pegu, Dayanada Saikia

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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.

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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Laparoscopic entry techniques.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Laparoscopic entry techniques: Which should you prefer?International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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 1 country.

Milan Kumar TayeAssistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Assam Medical College & Hospital , Dibrugarh, Assam, India .
Syed Abul FazalAssociate Professor, Department of Surgery, Assam Medical College & Hospital , Dibrugarh, Assam, India .
David PeguAssistant Professor, Department of Surgery, Assam Medical College & Hospital , Dibrugarh, Assam, India .
Dayanada SaikiaRegistrar, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Assam Medical College & Hospital , Dibrugarh, Assam, India .
Assam Medical College · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSafe placement of the Verres needle or the primary trocar for establishment of pneumoperitoneum is the most critical step in laparoscopic procedure as it is associated with bowel, bladder and life threatening vascular injuries and embolism. In the last few decades many techniques and guidelines have been introduced to eliminate complications in creation of pneumoperitoneum. Classical closed technique (Verres needle) and the open classic technique (Hasson) are the most commonly used techniques for creation of pneumoperitoneum.

aimTo compare the rate of occurrence and nature of complications in open and closed laparoscopy during establishment of pneumoperitoneum in different surgical and gynaecological procedures. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis was a comparative study conducted at three hospitals in Dibrugarh district, Assam, India from January 2012 to December 2014. Total 3000 cases were included in the study with 1500 cases of open laparoscopy and 1500 cases of closed laparoscopy. Complications occurring in both the groups were compared by using Fisher's-exact test.

resultsIn closed laparoscopy group minor complications occurred in 80 (5.33%) and major complications in 20 (1.33%) cases. In open laparoscopy group minor complications were observed in 60 (4%) and major complications in 2 (0.13%). The p-value of the difference between the two groups for minor complications was 0.0834 and for major complications was 0.0001(significant).

conclusionOpen laparoscopy was seen to be better than closed laparoscopy in terms of not only the rate of occurrence of complications but also the nature and severity of the complications. This study is clinically relevant as there is no consensus for a particular method of safe entry in to the peritoneal cavity warranting the need for more research. Open technique can be performed in all cases irrespective of previous operative scar, suspected intra peritoneal adhesions or obesity. Favourable outcome may be achieved in closed technique in cases of normal BMI, absence of postoperative scar in the abdomen, absence of abdominal and genital tuberculosis and pelvic inflammatory disease.

Indexed as

Direct trocarLaparoscopic complicationsPneumoperitoneumPort entryVerres needle

Identifiers

PMID27042535
PMCPMC4800601
OpenAlexW2318809221

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.