Trial reportIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Three-dimensional Laparoscopy (3D-LC)
Trial report in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- First RAND-36-Item Health Survey in Three-dimensional Laparoscopy Cholecystectomy: A Prospective Randomized Study.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Trial
- Patient-reported Outcome Measure (PROM) Rand-36-item Health Survey for Gallstone Disease Patients Five Years Following Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Study.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Trial
- Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional laparoscopy: What is the evidence?Veterinary surgery : VS · 2025Review
- A retrospective study of 3D laparoscopy and 2D laparoscopy in transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) for unilateral inguinal hernia in elderly patients.Updates in surgery · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimThree-dimensional laparoscopy (3D-Lap) is a recent innovation in surgery. The 3D-Lap is rarely used in cholecystectomy (3D-LC) and there are no prospective studies assessing advantages and disadvantages of 3D-LC versus minilaparotomy (MC) in cholecystectomy. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis was a prospective clinical study conducted in the Kuopio University Hospital, including 200 patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis who were randomized into 3D-LC (n=112) or MC (n=88) groups. The numeric rating scale (NRS) pain score and number of analgesic doses (NAD) following surgery were documented.
resultsSimilar low postoperative pain scores were reported in the 3D-LC and MC groups during the first hours following surgery, although the 3D-LC patients reported lower NRS pain score (p<0.05) one hour postoperatively. Interestingly, the 3D-LC patients showed significantly less pain 24 hours following surgery, the mean of NRS of 0-10 score at rest being 1.2 in the 3D-LC group versus 2.2 in the MC group (p<0.001), and the pain at the quick movement/coughing, the mean NRS being 2.9 in the 3D-LC group versus 3.6 in the MC group (p=0.05).
conclusionThe 3D-LC patients reported significantly lower pain scores 24 hours postoperatively than MC patients. However, the patient experience of pain depends on many factors and our results suggest that both 3D-LC and MC are safe and efficient techniques for cholecystectomy.
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.