Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32964868›Full record

ArticleJournal of minimal access surgery

Single-incision versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in an ambulatory surgery setting: A prospective randomised double-blind controlled trial.

Helena Subirana, Francisco Javier Rey, Joan Barri, Joaquim Robres, Lourdes Parra, Montserrat Martín, Robert Memba, Josep Maria Mullerat, Rosa Jorba

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors.

Helena SubiranaDepartment of General Surgery, Hospital Moisès Broggi, Consorci Sanitari Integral, Barcelona, Spain.
Francisco Javier ReyDepartment of General Surgery, Hospital General de l'Hospitalet, Consorci Sanitari Integral, Barcelona, Spain.
Joan BarriDepartment of General Surgery, Hospital General de l'Hospitalet, Consorci Sanitari Integral, Barcelona, Spain.
Joaquim RobresDepartment of General Surgery, Hospital General de l'Hospitalet, Consorci Sanitari Integral, Barcelona, Spain.
Lourdes ParraDepartment of Anesthesiology, Hospital General de l'Hospitalet, Consorci Sanitari Integral, Barcelona, Spain.
Montserrat MartínDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Hospital General de l'Hospitalet, Consorci Sanitari Integral, Barcelona, Spain.
Robert MembaDepartment of General Surgery, Hospital Universitari Joan XXIII de Tarragona, Tarragona, Spain.
Josep Maria MulleratDepartment of General Surgery, Hospital Moisès Broggi, Consorci Sanitari Integral, Barcelona, Spain.
Rosa JorbaDepartment of General Surgery, Hospital Universitari Joan XXIII de Tarragona, Tarragona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSingle-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) can be done as a day-case procedure and may have advantages over conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). We present the results of our study looking at post-operative pain and post-operative recovery time.

methodsThis was a single-institution randomised double-blind controlled trial. Seventy-three patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis were randomized to SILC (n = 37) or LC (n = 36). The primary endpoint was to compare post-operative pain. We also compared surgical time, procedural difficulty, adverse events, additional ports used and conversion rate, success of day surgery process, return to work, aesthetic satisfaction, quality of life and 4-year incisional hernia rate.

resultsIn the SILC group, post-operative analgesic requirements were lower on day 7, there was an earlier return to work and cosmetic satisfaction was significantly higher. The SILC procedure presented a higher technical difficulty. Operative time, surgical complications, post-operative pain, success of the day-case process, return to normal activity, quality of life scores and incisional hernia rates were similar for both the procedures.

conclusionsSILC has advantages over LC in terms of late post-operative analgesic requirements and aesthetic results; however, it is technically harder to perform. There was no benefit in terms of day surgery outcomes.

Indexed as

Ambulatory cholecystectomyday-case cholecystectomylaparoscopic cholecystectomyoutpatient surgerysingle-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Identifiers

PMID32964868
PMCPMC8270025

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.