ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences
Critical view of safety faster and safer technique during laparoscopic cholecystectomy?
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Critical view of safety approach vs. infundibular technique in laparoscopic cholecystectomy, which one is safer? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Updates in surgery · 2025Pooled it
- CRITICAL VIEW OF SAFETY: A PROSPECTIVE SURGICAL AND PHOTOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS IN LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY - DOES IT HELP TO PREVENT IATROGENIC LESIONS?Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2024Article
- When Critical View of Safety Fails: A Practical Perspective on Difficult Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
- [The clinical importance of the critical view of safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Article
- Evidence-based surgery for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Surgery open science · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIncidence of Bile Duct Injuries (BDI) during Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (LC) is reported to be higher as compared to Open Cholecystectomy. Studies have shown varying degree of success in reducing BDI by using Critical View of Safety (CVS) technique before clipping and cutting any structure. In this study, we will see whether CVS technique is faster and safer compared to conventional infundibular technique.
methodsThis comparative study was conducted on patients who presented to Surgical Out-Patient-Department (OPD) of Khyber Teaching Hospital from July 2015 to June 2016. Total of 438 patients were divided into two groups. Group-A in which LC was done using infundibular while in Group-B, CVS technique was utilized. Two groups were compared for operating time and BDI.
resultsThe operative time was significantly reduced for LC using CVS technique (50 mins vs. 73 mins). Minor leaks were comparable (0.5% vs. 0.9%) but there was a significant difference in major LEAKS between the two techniques (0.5% vs. 1.4%).
conclusionAlthough the "critical view of safety" requires more dissection as compared to infundibular technique, but once learnt and mastered, it is faster and safer identification technique during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
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.