ArticleJSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
The First Additional Port During Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.
Article in JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of enhanced recovery after surgery nursing on gastrointestinal recovery function and life quality in patients laparoscopic cholecystectomy.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Outcome of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared to three-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesSingle-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) has become increasingly popular. Regarding the difficulties of SILC in acute cholecystitis, additional port insertion is sometimes required. However, appropriate locations for additional port insertion have not been well studied. In the present study, the safety and effectiveness of the first additional port insertion in the epigastric region during SILC was assessed.
methodsAdditional port insertions were needed in 52 of 113 patients who underwent SILC for acute cholecystitis. The first port was inserted in the epigastric region and the second (if required) was inserted in the right lateral subcostal area. A drainage catheter was positioned through the epigastric port.
resultsOne additional port was inserted in 43 patients and two additional ports were inserted in 9 patients. Mean operation time was 45.0 minutes in the Pure SILC group and 83.3 minutes in Additional Port group. Mean hospital stay was 3.7 days in the Pure SILC group and 5.9 days in Additional Port group. There was no open conversion. Intra-operative (n = 5) and postoperative bile leakages (n = 2) were identified in six patients. Timing of operation after onset of symptoms was significantly greater in the group with bile duct injury than in those without bile duct injury in patients who required additional ports.
conclusionsThe first additional port in the epigastric area during SILC for acute cholecystitis helps to complete the operation without open conversion. However, the procedure can be performed safely in selective patients with relatively short duration of symptoms.
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.