ReviewJournal of minimal access surgery
Patient selection for ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systematic review.
Review 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Currently, there is no consensus on patient selection for ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). This study is a systematic review of previously published patient selection for ambulatory LC. Methods: A comprehensive search was done in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Google Scholar Database up to March 2020 to summarise previously reported medical or surgical selection criteria used for inclusion and exclusion of patients, as well as successful same-day discharge rates and readmission rate after discharge. Results: Fifty-nine studies with a total of 13,219 patients were included in this systematic review. In total, the median same-day discharge rate was 90% (range: 63%-99.4%), and median readmission rate was 2.22% (range: 0%-16.9%). The most considered medical criteria were American Society of Anesthesiologists classification I and II, age <70, and body mass index <35. Surgical criteria varied greatly. The top three accessible exclusion variables were (1) common bile duct stones, cholangitis, or jaundice (27 publications, 45.8%); (2) history of abdominal surgery (12 publications, 20.3%) and (3) history of pancreatitis (9 publications, 15.3%). Conclusion: The results of the current study showed the variable patient selection in different centres, the medical aspect criteria may be expanded under adequate pre-anaesthetic assessment and preparation and the surgical aspect criteria should include more laboratory or imaging parameters to ensure the surgical safety.
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.