Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38233627›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024

Outcomes of laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy: a comparative analysis of fenestrating and reconstituting approaches in 170 cases.

Christophe Thomas, Dorothy Wintrip, Liam Horgan, James Brown

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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.

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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christophe ThomasGeneral Surgery Department, North Tyneside General Hospital, Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Rake Ln, Tyne and Wear, North Shields, NE29 8NH, England. christophe.thomas@nhs.net.ORCID 0000-0002-9827-6827
Dorothy WintripGeneral Surgery Department, North Tyneside General Hospital, Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Rake Ln, Tyne and Wear, North Shields, NE29 8NH, England.
Liam HorganGeneral Surgery Department, North Tyneside General Hospital, Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Rake Ln, Tyne and Wear, North Shields, NE29 8NH, England.
James BrownGeneral Surgery Department, North Tyneside General Hospital, Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Rake Ln, Tyne and Wear, North Shields, NE29 8NH, England.
North Tyneside General Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy (LSC) is a recognised alternative to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) when it is unsafe to achieve the "critical view of safety". Although LSC reduces the risk of bile duct injury, it is associated with increased morbidity, primarily due to bile leak. LSC can be classified as fenestrating (F-LSC) or reconstituting (R-LSC), with the latter being more complex. The objective of this study was to evaluate the two LSC techniques, their complications, and overall outcomes.

methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of all adult patients who underwent LSC between January 2015 and December 2021 using our electronic database. Data collected included patient demographics, prior acute biliary presentations, operative details/techniques, length of stay (LOS), 30-day complications, 30-day mortality, readmissions, and follow-up investigations/procedures. Descriptive statistics, Chi-squared tests, and relative risk were employed for data analysis.

resultsIn the study period, LSC was performed on 170 patients, showing an increasing trend over time. Most procedures (76%) were performed in the acute setting, and 37.1% of patients had a history of previous acute biliary presentations. Fenestrating LSC was the most performed technique (115 [67.6%] vs. 55 [32.4%]). Complications occurred in 80 (47.1%) patients; 60 patients (35.3%) had a bile leak. 16 patients (9.4%) required reoperation, and readmission was observed in 14 patients (8.2%). F-LSC was associated with more complications [p = 0.03 RR 2.46 (95% CI 1.5-4)], more bile leaks [p < 0.01, RR 2.1 (95% CI 1.2-3.7)], greater need for rescue postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) [p < 0.01, RR 3.8 (95% CI 1.4-10.2)], and longer LOS (6 vs. 4 days p < 0.01).

conclusionAlthough LSC is seen as a safe alternative to open conversion, our findings demonstrate a high morbidity, including reoperation/reintervention, readmissions, and complications, associated with LSC especially with F-LSC. We suggest that if LSC is performed, the reconstituted technique should be chosen, if feasible.

Indexed as

Biliary Tract DiseasesCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicAdultCholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeHumansLength of StayRetrospective StudiesCholecystectomyLaparoscopic surgerySubtotal cholecystectomy

Identifiers

PMID38233627
OpenAlexW4390936004

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.