Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33587285›Full record

SynthesisUpdates in surgery2021

Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of three-port vs four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (level 1 evidence).

Shahab Hajibandeh, David A Finch, Ali Yasen Y Mohamedahmed, Amir Iskandar, Gowtham Venkatesan, Shahin Hajibandeh, Thomas Satyadas

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Updates in surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Totally Endoscopic Internal Thoracic Artery Harvesting with Efficient Setup Modifications for Minimally Invasive Direct Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.Annals of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery : official journal of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Shahab Hajibandeh *General Surgery, Wales Deanery, Health Education and Improvement Wales, Cardiff, UK. shahab_hajibandeh@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3294-4335
David A Finch *Department of General Surgery, Pinderfields General Hospital, Wakefield, UK.
Ali Yasen Y MohamedahmedDepartment of General Surgery, Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Amir IskandarDepartment of General Surgery, North Manchester General Hospital, North Manchester Care Organisation, Manchester, UK.
Gowtham VenkatesanDepartment of General Surgery, Glan Clwyd Hospital, The Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Rhyl, UK.
Shahin HajibandehDepartment of General Surgery, Hereford County Hospital, Wye Valley NHS Trust, Hereford, UK.
Thomas SatyadasDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Manchester Royal Infirmary Hospital, Manchester, UK.
Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board · GBGlan Clwyd Hospital · GBManchester Royal Infirmary · GBNorth Manchester General Hospital · GBPinderfields Hospital · GBSandwell & West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To compare the outcomes of three-port and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In compliance with PRISMA statement standards, electronic databases were searched to identify all comparative studies investigating outcomes of three-port vs four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Two techniques were compared using direct comparison meta-analysis model. The risks of type 1 or type 2 error in the meta-analysis model were assessed using trial sequential analysis model. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE system. Random effects modelling was applied to calculate pooled outcome data. Analysis of 2524 patients from 17 studies showed that both techniques were comparable in terms of operative time (MD:- 0.13, P = 0.88), conversion to open operation (OR:0.80, P = 0.43), gallbladder perforation (OR: 1.43, P = 0.13), bleeding from gallbladder bed (OR:0.81, P = 0.34), bile duct injury (RD: 0.00, P = 0.97), iatrogenic visceral injury (RD: - 0.00, P = 0.81), bile or stone spillage (OR:1.67, P = 0.08), port site infection (OR: 0.90, P = 0.76), port site hernia (RD: 0.00, P = 0.89), port site haematoma (RD: - 0.01, P = 0.23), port site seroma (RD: 0.00, P = 1.00), and need for reoperation (RD: - 0.00, P = 0.94). However, the three-port technique was associated with lower VAS pain score at 12 h (MD: - 0.66, P < 0.00001) and 24 h (MD: - 0.54, P < 0.00001) postoperatively, shorter length of hospital stay (MD:-0.09, P = 0.41), and shorter time to return to normal activities (MD: - 0.79, P = 0.02). Trial sequential analysis confirmed that the meta-analysis was conclusive with no significant risks of type 1 or type 2 error. Robust evidence (level 1 with high certainty) suggests that in an elective setting with uncomplicated cholelithiasis as indication for cholecystectomy, three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy is comparable with the four-port technique in terms of procedural and morbidity outcomes and may be associated with less postoperative pain, shorter length of hospital stay and shorter time to return to normal activities.

Indexed as

Cholecystectomy, LaparoscopicGallbladder DiseasesCholecystectomyHumansOperative TimeTreatment OutcomeCholecystectomyGallstoneLaparoscopic cholecystectomyMinimally invasive surgicalProcedures

Identifiers

PMID33587285
OpenAlexW3131330658

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.