SynthesisSurgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques2016
Safety Outcomes of NOTES Cholecystectomy Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- Skill transference and learning curves in novice learners: a randomized comparison of robotic and laparoscopic platforms.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Trial
- Vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for malignant ovarian tumors: a single-institution study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- True natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery-transgastric cholecystectomy and beyond.Clinical endoscopy · 2025Review
- Evolution of minimally invasive cholecystectomy: a narrative review.BMC surgery · 2024Review
- Endoscopic Management of Benign Gallbladder Diseases.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2024Review
- An empirical comparison of the harmful effects for randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies of interventions.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- [Clinical value of alternative technologies to standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy - single port, reduced port, robotics, NOTES].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2022Review
- Single-port laparoscopic sacrospinous ligament suspensionFrontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Extrahepatic bile duct reconstruction in pigs with heterogenous animal-derived artificial bile ducts: A preliminary experience.World journal of gastroenterology · 2020Article
- Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) using flexible endoscope with laparoscopic assistance: a pilot study in porcine models.Updates in surgery · 2020Article
- A snare-assisted pure NOTES retrograde cholecystectomy using a single channel flexible endoscope: a pilot experiment in a porcine model.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Does obesity influence the results in Transvaginal Hybrid-NOTES cholecystectomy?Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
- Transvaginal Hybrid NOTES Cholecystectomy: A Single-Centre Long-Term Experience on Sexual Function.World journal of surgery · 2018Article
- Postoperative outcomes of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery-assisted vaginal hysterectomy and conventional laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: a comparative study.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2018Article
- Magnetic surgery: first U.S. experience with a novel device.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
- [NOTES in visceral surgery : Current status].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2017Review
- Laparoscopic-Assisted Transvaginal Cholecystectomy - the US Military Experience With Long-Term Follow Up.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveNatural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is an endoscopic technique whereby surgical interventions can be performed with a flexible endoscope passed through a natural orifice (mouth, vulva, urethra, anus) then through a transluminal opening of the stomach, vagina, bladder, or colon. Although in the early stage of research and development, NOTES has been clinically applied across the globe, above all the transvaginal cholecystectomy is among the most frequently performed procedures. In the existing 2 types of transvaginal routes, the hybrid NOTES cholecystectomy (NC) is more likely to be accepted. However, there has been controversy regarding the safety outcomes of hybrid NC in comparison with classical laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The primary objective of this meta-analysis is to compare the characteristics between NC and classical LC. MATERIALS AND
methodsA meta-analysis of eligible studies comparing NC with classical LC was performed to evaluate the safety outcomes including wound complications, other postoperative complications and intraoperative conversion between the 2 groups.
resultsPooling 3 randomized controlled trials (n=157) and 7 nonrandomized trial (n=593) demonstrated that the rates of wound complications and other postoperative complications in NC group did not significantly differ from those of classical LC group [wound complications: ratio difference (RD)=-0.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.04to 0.01, P=0.23; other postoperative complication: RD=-0.01; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.02; P=0.6]. The intraoperative conversion rate in NC groups was higher than that of LC groups (RD=0.03; 95% CI, 0.01-0.06; P=0.02).
conclusionsThere is no significate difference between the safety of NC and laparoscope cholecystectomy. NC is associated with a higher rate of intraoperative conversion when compared with LC. It is worthy of further promotion and validation in clinical settings.
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.