Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37007356›Full record

ReviewCureus2023

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Bag Extraction Versus Direct Extraction for Retrieval of Gallbladder After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.

Hussam Khougali Mohamed, Mohamed Albendary, Ali Ahmed Wuheb, Omer Ali, Mohammed Jibreel Mohammed, Mohamed Osman, Mohamed S M Elshikhawoda, Ali Yasen Mohamedahmed

Registry-linked trialOpen access · diamondFull text readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07672145 (Comparison of Gallbladder Extraction Via the Subxiphoid Port and the Infraumbilical Port During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07672145 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Comparison of Gallbladder Extraction Via the Subxiphoid Port and the Infraumbilical Port During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorKing Edward Medical UniversityRan2026 to 2026Enrolled66ConditionsCholelithiasis (Without Cholecystitis), Cholecystitis, AcuteArmsSubxiphoid Gallbladder Retrieval, Infraumbilical Gallbladder Extraction
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Hussam Khougali MohamedGeneral and Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, University Hospital Hairmyres, Glasgow, GBR.
Mohamed AlbendaryGeneral Surgery, Peterborough City Hospital, Peterborough, GBR.
Ali Ahmed WuhebSurgery, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, GBR.
Omer AliSurgical Oncology, Blackburn Royal, Lancashire, GBR.
Mohammed Jibreel MohammedGeneral and Colorectal Surgery, University Hospital Wishaw, Glasgow, GBR.
Mohamed OsmanGeneral Surgery, Princess of Wales Hospital, Bridgend, GBR.
Mohamed S M ElshikhawodaVascular Surgery, Glan Clwyd Hospital, Rhyl, GBR.
Ali Yasen MohamedahmedGeneral Surgery, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, GBR.
Wishaw General Hospital · GBBlackburn College · USHairmyres Hospital · GBGlan Clwyd Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This analysis aims to evaluate the comparative outcomes of gallbladder extraction with a bag versus direct extraction in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). A systematic online search was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane database, The Virtual Health Library, Clinical trials.gov, and Science Direct. Comparative studies comparing bag versus direct extraction of the gallbladder in LC were included. Outcomes were surgical site infection (SSI), the extension of fascial defect to extract the gallbladder, intra-abdominal collection, bile spillage, and port-site hernia. Revman 5.4 (Cochrane, London, United Kingdom) was used for the data analysis. The results show eight studies were eligible to be included in this review with a total number of 1805 patients divided between endo-bag (n=835) and direct extraction (n=970). Four of the included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) while the rest were observational studies. The rate of SSI and bile spillage were significantly higher in the direct extraction group: odds ratio (OR)=2.50, p=0.006 and OR=2.83, p=0.01, respectively. Comparable results were observed regarding intra-abdominal collection between the two groups(OR=0.01, p=0.51). However, the extension of a fascial defect was higher in the endo-bag group (OR=0.22, p=0.00001), and no difference was observed regarding the port-site hernia rate (OR-0.70, p=0.55). In conclusion, extraction of the gallbladder with an endo-bag provides a lower rate of SSI and bile spillage with similar results regarding post-operative intra-abdominal collection. Although with the endo-bag, the fascial defect will more likely need to be increased to extract the gallbladder. However, the port-site hernia rate remains similar between the two groups.

Indexed as

bile spillagegallbladder removallaporoscopic cholecystectomyport site infectionspecimen bag

Identifiers

PMID37007356
PMCPMC10049925
OpenAlexW4322154519

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read42
Read underepoch 390

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.