ReviewJournal of minimal access surgery
Systematic review and meta-analysis of single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic splenectomy.
Review in Journal of minimal access surgery. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term outcomes of single-port laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective comparative analysis.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2024Article
- Single Incision Laparoscopic Surgery (SILS) in Small Animals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Current Veterinary Literature.Veterinary sciences · 2021Review
- Single Incision Pediatric Endoscopic Surgery: From Myth to Reality a Case Series.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2019Article
- Laparoscopic splenectomy for a simultaneous wandering spleen along with an ectopic accessory spleen. Case report and review of the literature.International journal of surgery case reports · 2018Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is no consensus that single-incision laparoscopic surgery splenectomy (SILS-SP) is on a par with conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery splenectomy (CMLS-SP).
aimsThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess feasibility and safety of SILS-SP when compared with CMLS-SP. MATERIALS AND
methodsEligible articles were identified by searching several databases including PubMed, EMBASE, CNKI (China) and the Cochrane Library, up until February 2016. Studies were reviewed independently and rated by Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Evaluated outcomes were complications, operative time, post-operative hospital stay, blood loss, starting diet, post-operative pain scores, conversion and analgesic requirements.
resultsTen retrospective studies met the eligibility criteria. Overall, there was no significant difference between SILS-SP and CMLS-SP in complications, operative time, post-operative hospital stay, blood loss, starting diet, post-operative pain scores, conversion and analgesic requirements.
conclusionsSILS-SP is feasible and safe in certain patients, with no obvious advantages over CMLS-SP. Therefore, it may be considered an alternative to CMLS-SP. We await high-quality, double-blind RCTs. These should include clear statements on standard scores of post-operative pain and cosmetic results, longer follow-up assessment and cost-benefit analysis.
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.