ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2016
A Comparative Study of Single Incision versus Conventional Four Ports Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.
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 7 papers, 4 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, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for single-incision cholecystectomy: an updated systematic review.Updates in surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a current meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Pooled it
- European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Guideline
- Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is responsible for increased adverse events: results of a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Pooled it
- Review
- A Comprehensive Analysis of Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Trends, Challenges, and Future Directions.Cureus · 2024Review
- Initial experiences of robotic SP cholecystectomy: a comparative analysis with robotic Si single-site cholecystectomy.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCholelithiasis is one of the most common disorders of the digestive tract encountered by general surgeons worldwide. Conventional or open cholecystectomy was the mainstay of treatment for a long time for this disease. In the 1980s laparoscopic surgery revolutionized the management of biliary tract diseases. It brought about a revolutionary change in the basic concepts of surgical principles and minimal access surgery gradually started to be acknowledged as a safe means of carrying out surgeries.
aimTo investigate the technical feasibility, safety and benefit of Single Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (SILC) versus Conventional Four Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (C4PLC). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective randomized control trial was conducted to compare the advantages if any between the SILC and C4PLC. Thirty two patients underwent SILC procedure and C4PLC, each. The age of the patients ranged from 16-60years. Other demographic data and indications for cholecystectomy were comparable in both the groups. Simple comparative statistical analysis was carried out in the present study. Results on continuous variables are shown in Mean ± SD; whereas results on categorical variables are shown in percentage (%) by keeping the level of significance at 5%. Intergroup analysis of the various study parameters was done by using Fisher exact test. SPSS version 22 was used for statistical analysis.
resultsThe mean operating time was higher in the SILC group (69 ± 4.00 mins vs. 38.53 ± 4.00 mins) which was of statistical significance (p=<0.05). Furthermore, the patients of the SILC group had less post-operative pain, with lesser analgesic requirements (p=<0.05), shorter hospital stay and earlier return to normal activity.
conclusionSILC is feasible and safe in trained hands. It did not compromise the procedural safety, or lead to any complication. The operating time was longer otherwise it has almost similar clinical outcomes to those of C4PLC.
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.