ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Specialist-led urgent cholecystectomy for acute gallstone disease.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review: robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic multiport cholecystectomy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Experience with robotic common bile duct exploration for common bile duct stones in comparison to a conventional laparoscopic approach.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- High volume, quick turnover day-case robotic cholecystectomy utilising the HIT principle: a service evaluation for driving increased productivity.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Three-arm robotic cholecystectomy: a novel, cost-effective method of delivering and learning robotic surgery in upper GI surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Intra-operative ultrasound assessment of the biliary tree during robotic cholecystectomy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite overwhelming evidence of the clinical and financial benefit of urgent cholecystectomy, there is variable enthusiasm and uptake across the UK. In 2014, following the First National Emergency Laparotomy Audit Organisational Report, we implemented a specialist-led urgent surgery service, whereby all patients with gallstone-related pathologies were admitted under the direct care of specialist upper gastrointestinal surgeons. We have analysed 5 years of data to investigate the results of this service model.
methodsComputerised operating theatre records were interrogated to identify all patients within a 5-year period undergoing cholecystectomy. Patient demographics, admission details, length of stay, duration of surgery, and complications were analysed.
resultsBetween 01/01/2016 and 31/12/2020, a total of 4870 cholecystectomies were performed; 1793 (36.8%) were urgent cases and 3077 (63.2%) were elective cases. All cases were started laparoscopically; 25 (0.5%) were converted to open surgery-14 of 1793 (0.78%) urgent cases and 11 of 3077 (0.36%) elective cases. Urgent cholecystectomy took 20 min longer than elective surgery (median 74 versus 52 min). No relevant difference in conversion rate was observed when urgent cholecystectomy was performed within 2 days, between 2 and 4 days, or greater than 4 days from admission (P = 0.197). Median total hospital stay was 4 days.
conclusionUrgent laparoscopic cholecystectomy is safe and feasible in most patients with acute gall bladder disease. Surgery under the direct care of upper gastrointestinal specialist surgeons is associated with a low conversion rate, low complication rate, and short hospital stay. Timing of surgery has no effect on conversion rate or complication 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.