ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
Use of the self-reported critical view of safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy during residency.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Near-infrared fluorescence cholangiography assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy (FALCON): an international multicentre randomized controlled trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Trial
- Surgical skill assessment using an AI-based surgical phase recognition model for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEven though the goal of safely performing cholecystectomy is already a priority in general surgical training programs, we aimed to study how many residents and attendings reached the critical view of safety (CVS) in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. MATERIALS AND
methodsRetrospective review of prospectively collected data of all patients with biliary surgical conditions, which underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy and their corresponding postoperative notes with self-reported CVS from May 2019 to May 2020 in an academic hospital. Comparisons of operative variables between postgraduate year and attendings were made.
resultsLaparoscopic cholecystectomy was performed in 126 elective cases (62.6%) and 75 (37.3%) emergency cases. On 105 (83.3%) of the elective cases and on 54 (66.7%) emergency cases, a CVS was successfully performed. PGY3 and PGY5 had higher odds of achieving CVS compared to attendings OR 6.09 (95% CI 2.05 to 8.07) and 4.51 (95% CI 1.0 to 10.20), respectively. Overall, attendings had decreased odds ratio of achieving CVS of 0.488 when compared to all residents. Elective procedures had increased odds ratios of achieving CVS of 3.44 (95% CI 1.52 to 7.74). On elective cases, attendings performed significantly faster procedures when compared to PGY2-4, but not PGY5. No differences were seen between operative speeds between PGY. Third-year residents were identified as having the highest frequency of CVS; however, these differences were not statistically significant. In emergency cases, blood loss, operative time, CVS, and bile duct injuries revealed non-significant differences between operators.
conclusionCVS was reached significantly more often in elective than in emergency surgeries. There is still a lack of residents and attending surgeons who still failed to complete CVS during LC, highlighting the need for further education. Future studies should be attempted to repeat this study with a larger sample size and multiple coaching sessions to determine long-term efficacy.
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.