ArticleSurgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques2016
Endoscopic-Laparoscopic Cholecystolithotomy in Treatment of Cholecystolithiasis Compared With Traditional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.
Article 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Are laparoscopic cholecystectomy and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery gallbladder preserving cholecystolithotomy truly comparable? A propensity matched study.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2022Article
- Effect of comprehensive high-quality nursing care on postoperative complications, degree of pain, and nursing satisfaction in gallstone patients during perioperative period.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
- Reconsideration of indications for choledochoscopic gallbladder-preserving surgery and preventive measures for postoperative recurrence of gallstones.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2020Article
- The physical presence of gallstone modulatesGastroenterology report · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study aimed to compare the application values of endoscopic-laparoscopic cholecystolithotomy (ELC) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) for patients with cholecystolithiasis. It did a retrospective analysis of 107 patients with cholecystolithiasis who underwent ELC and 144 patients with cholecystolithiasis who underwent LC. There is no significant difference in operating time and expenses when comparing ELC with LC (P>0.05). ELC showed significantly less blood loss during operation compared with LC (P<0.01). Shortened exhaust time (P<0.05) and hospital stay (P<0.01) were present in patients who underwent ELC. Moreover, ELC showed decreased occurrence rate of dyspepsia and diarrhea in comparison with LC (P<0.01). The stone recurrence rate of ELC was 16.67%. ELC decreased the recurrence of stone in common bile duct in comparison with LC. The contractile function of gallbladder was close to normal (P<0.05), and the thickness of gallbladder wall significantly decreased (P<0.001). Patients who underwent ELC showed less digestive symptom, good recovery, and low stone recurrence compared with those who underwent LC.
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.