Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38022298›Full record

ReviewCureus2023

Single Incision Versus Conventional Multiport Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

Karim Ataya, Ayman M Bsat, Almoutuz Aljaafreh, Amir Rabih Al Ayoubi, Abdul Hafiz Al Tannir

Abstract 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. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Karim AtayaUpper Gastrointestinal Surgery, King's College Hospital, London, GBR.
Ayman M BsatGeneral Surgery, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, LBN.
Almoutuz AljaafrehUpper Gastrointestinal Surgery, King's College Hospital, London, GBR.
Amir Rabih Al AyoubiGeneral Medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Lebanese University, Beirut, LBN.
Abdul Hafiz Al TannirGeneral Surgery, American University of Beirut Medical center, Lebanon, Beirut, LBN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is the most widely performed bariatric surgery and has been associated with excellent outcomes and a significant reduction in obesity-related morbidity and mortality. Traditionally, this surgery is performed using five to seven trocars. However, LSG performed through a single trocar is emerging as a less invasive method of performing this surgery. This systematic review and meta-analysis compare the outcomes and complication rates of single-port versus multi-port LSG. We searched PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for articles published from 2008 to 2023, in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Data on variables such as operative time, excess weight loss, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative leak, and incisional hernia rates were collected and analyzed using a random-effects model. Fourteen articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. No significant differences were found between the single-port LSG (SILSG) and conventional LSG (CLSG) groups in terms of operative time, rate, intraoperative complications, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and excess weight loss (EWL). Furthermore, single incision sleeve gastrectomy showed better satisfaction with the cosmetic score. SILSG is a viable alternative procedure, showing comparable outcomes to multiport conventional sleeve gastrectomy, in addition, to a better cosmetic satisfaction score.

Indexed as

bariatric surgerylaparoscopic surgerymultiportsingle-incisionsleeve gastrectomy

Identifiers

PMID38022298
PMCPMC10640720

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.