Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2017
Impact of miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy on recovery of physical activity: a randomized trial.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01397565 (Minilaparoscopic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Minilaparoscopic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Randomized Trial
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Measurement of patient-reported outcomes after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Pooled it
- Low-impact laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with decreased postoperative morbidity in patients with sickle cell disease.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Trial
- Minilap-assisted modified single-incisionPeerJ · 2026Article
- Evolution of minimally invasive cholecystectomy: a narrative review.BMC surgery · 2024Review
- Evidence-based surgery for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Surgery open science · 2022Article
- Minilaparoscopic over conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy and appendectomy: is it worth it? A case series and review of literature.Journal of surgical case reports · 2022Article
- Article
- Feasibility of needlescopic surgery for colorectal cancer: safety and learning curve for Japanese Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification System-unqualified young surgeons.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- The protocol of low-impact laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the combination of mini-laparoscopy and low-pressure pneumoperitoneum.Updates in surgery · 2018Article
- [Minilaparoscopy with 5 mm optics and 3 mm trocars].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2017Review
- Minimising in minimally invasive surgery through the use of a novel and flexible super elastic titanium needle suitable for a 3.5- and 5-mm trocar.Journal of minimal access surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe conducted a randomized trial comparing minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC) to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) to determine whether MLC accelerated recovery of physical activity after elective surgery (NCT01397565).
methodsA total of 115 patients scheduled for elective cholecystectomy were randomized to either CLC or MLC. Both procedures used a 10-mm umbilical port, but the three upper abdominal ports were 5 mm in CLC and 3 mm in MLC. Primary outcome was self-reported physical activity 1 month after surgery as estimated by Community Health Activities Model Program for Seniors questionnaire (kcal/kg/week). Secondary outcomes were umbilical pain, abdominal pain, nausea and fatigue (VAS, 1-10), and cosmetic result at one and 3 months. Patients received identical surgical dressings for 1 week, and assessors were blinded to group allocation.
resultsForty-two patients randomized to CLC group and 33 patients randomized to MLC remained in the trial and were analyzed. Both groups were similar at baseline characteristics. In the MLC group, at least one 5-mm port was used in 17 (51.5 %) mainly due to unavailability of ML equipment. Median (IQR) physical activity for the CLC and MLC groups was similar at baseline (23.4 [13.1, 44.6] vs 23.6 [14.2, 66.9] kcal/kg/week, p = 0.35) and at 1 month (20 [7.9, 52.5] vs 16.8 [11.8, 28.6] kcal/kg/week, p = 0.90). One month post-op, umbilical pain and abdominal pain were similar, but the CLC group reported higher fatigue (4 [1-5] vs 1 [0-4], p = 0.05) and worse scar appearance scores (4 [3, 4] vs 4.5 [4, 5], p = 0.009). At 3 months, the CLC group had worse scar appearance (4 [3-5] vs 5 [4-5], p = 0.02) and lower scar satisfaction scores (4 [3, 4] vs 4 [3.5-4], p = 0.04).
conclusionRecovery of physical activity was similar after MLC and CLC. MLC resulted in less fatigue and better scar appearance and satisfaction. These benefits were seen despite the need to upsize one or more ports in more than half of patients related to availability of the miniature instruments.
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.