ArticleFrontiers in surgery2022
Critical view of safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A prospective investigation from both cognitive and executive aspects.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Structured feedback and operative video debriefing with critical view of safety annotation in training of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled study.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Trial
- Assessment of Safety and Errors in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in the Treatment of Gallstone Disease in Southeastern Mexico.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Development of anatomical metrics for objective quantification of critical view of safety.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Multicenter external validation of a nomogram predicting conversion to open cholecystectomy during laparoscopic surgery for acute calculous cholecystitis: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Patient and surgeon predictors of achieving the critical view of safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective cohort study.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- How to achieve the critical view of safety for safe laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Technical aspects.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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The achievement rate of the critical view of safety during laparoscopic cholecystectomy is much lower than expected. This original study aims to investigate and analyze factors associated with a low critical view of safety achievement. Materials and Methods: We prospectively collected laparoscopic cholecystectomy videos performed from September 2, 2021, to September 19, 2021, in Sichuan Province, China. The artificial intelligence system, SurgSmart, analyzed videos under the necessary corrections undergone by expert surgeons. Also, we distributed questionnaires to surgeons and analyzed them along with surgical videos simultaneously. Results: We collected 169 laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgical videos undergone by 124 surgeons, among which 105 participants gave valid answers to the questionnaire. Excluding those who conducted the bail-out process directly, the overall critical view of safety achievement rates for non-inflammatory and inflammatory groups were 18.18% (18/99) and 9.84% (6/61), respectively. Although 80.95% (85/105) of the surgeons understood the basic concept of the critical view of safety, only 4.76% (5/105) of the respondents commanded all three criteria in an error-free way. Multivariate logistic regression results showed that an unconventional surgical workflow (OR:12.372, Conclusions: The execution and cognition of the critical view of safety are deficient, especially the latter one. Thus, increasing the critical view of safety surgical awareness may effectively improve its achievement rate.
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.