Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31620914›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2020

Single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a current meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Yunxiao Lyu, Yunxiao Cheng, Bin Wang, Sicong Zhao, Liang Chen

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The First Additional Port During Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Article
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

5 authors.

Yunxiao LyuDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Dongyang People's Hospital, 60 West Wuning Road, Dongyang, 322100, Zhejiang, China. lvyunxiao1986@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2795-9698
Yunxiao ChengDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Dongyang People's Hospital, 60 West Wuning Road, Dongyang, 322100, Zhejiang, China.
Bin WangDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Dongyang People's Hospital, 60 West Wuning Road, Dongyang, 322100, Zhejiang, China.
Sicong ZhaoDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Dongyang People's Hospital, 60 West Wuning Road, Dongyang, 322100, Zhejiang, China.
Liang ChenDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Dongyang People's Hospital, 60 West Wuning Road, Dongyang, 322100, Zhejiang, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe performed this study to compare the safety and feasibility of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) with conventional multiple-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MPLC).

methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials comparing SILC versus MPLC. We evaluated the pooled outcomes for complications, pain scores, and surgery-related events. This study was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.

resultsA total of 48 randomized controlled trials involving 2838 patients in the SILC group and 2956 patients in the MPLC group were included in this study. Our results showed that SILC was associated with a higher incidence of incisional hernia (relative risk = 2.51; 95% confidence interval = 1.23-5.12; p = 0.01) and longer operation time (mean difference = 15.27 min; 95% confidence interval = 9.67-20.87; p < 0.00001). There were no significant differences between SILC and MPLC regarding bile duct injury, bile leakage, wound infection, conversion to open surgery, retained common bile duct stones, total complication rate, and estimated blood loss. No difference was observed in postoperative pain assessed by a visual analogue scale between the two groups at four time points (6 h, 8 h, 12 h, and 24 h postprocedure).

conclusionsBased on the current evidence, SILC did not result in better outcomes compared with MPLC and both were equivalent regarding complications. Considering the additional surgical technology and longer operation time, SILC should be chosen with careful consideration.

Indexed as

Cholecystectomy, LaparoscopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurgical WoundBileBlood Loss, SurgicalConversion to Open SurgeryFemaleHumansIncisional HerniaMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimeOutcome Assessment, Health CarePostoperative PainPublication BiasRiskConventionalLaparoscopic cholecystectomyMeta-analysisSingle-incisionSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31620914

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.