Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28039641›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2017

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Laura Evers, Nicole Bouvy, Dion Branje, Andrea Peeters

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 NCT03768661 (Long-term Incisional Hernia Rate After Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy), which is not on this map. Cited by 44 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03768661 completednot on this map

Long-term Incisional Hernia Rate After Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (SILC) in Front of Standard Laparoscopy

TypeobservationalSponsorHospital PlatóRan2009 to 2017Enrolled185ConditionsCholelithiasisArmsSingle-incision Laparoscopic cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Postoperative Pain After Single-Site Versus Multiport Hysterectomy.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. ArtiSentialAnnals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2025
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Laura EversMaastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht University, P.Debyelaan 25, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands. n.bouvy@mumc.nl.
Nicole BouvyDepartment of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Dion BranjeMaastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht University, P.Debyelaan 25, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Andrea PeetersDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSingle-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) might maximize the advantages of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) by reducing postoperative pain and improving cosmesis. However, the safety and feasibility of SILC has not yet been established. This study assesses safety, patient reported outcome measures and feasibility of SILC versus conventional LC.

methodsLiterature search for RCT's comparing SILC with conventional LC in gallstone-related disease was performed in PubMed and Embase. The conventional LC was defined as two 10-mm and two 5-mm ports. Study selection was done according to predefined criteria. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias. Pooled outcomes were calculated for adverse events, pain, cosmesis, quality of life and feasibility using fixed-effect and random-effects models.

resultsNine RCT's were included with total of 860 patients. No mortality was observed. More mild adverse events (RR 1.55; 95% CI 0.99-2.42) and significantly more serious adverse events (RR 3.00; 95% CI 1.05-8.58) occurred in the SILC group. Postoperative pain (MD -0.46; 95% CI -0.74 to -0.18) and cosmesis (SMD 2.38; 95% CI 1.50-3.26) showed significantly better results for the SILC group, but no differences were observed in quality of life. Operating time (MD 23.12; 95% CI 11.59-34.65) and the need for additional ports (RR 11.43; 95% CI 3.48-37.50) were significantly higher in the SILC group. No difference was observed in conversion to open cholecystectomy or hospital stay longer than 24 h.

conclusionsSILC does not provide any clear advantages over conventional LC except for less postoperative pain and improved cosmesis. It is questionable whether these advantages outweigh the higher occurrence of adverse events and shortcomings in feasibility. Considering considerable heterogeneity and low methodological quality of the studies it is advisable to perform well-designed RCT's in the future to address the safety and clinical benefits of SILC.

Indexed as

Cholecystectomy, LaparoscopicFeasibility StudiesHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPatient SafetyConventionalFeasibilityLaparoscopic cholecystectomySafetySingle-incision

Identifiers

PMID28039641
PMCPMC5579203

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.