ArticleSurgery open science2024
Safety of cholecystectomy performed by surgeons who prefer fundus first versus surgeons who prefer a standard laparoscopic approach.
Article in Surgery open science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intraoperative diagnosis and endoscopic management of iatrogenic common bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A case report.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2026Article
- Indocyanine green fluorescence improves safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy using the Fundus First technique: a retrospective study.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Machine learning algorithms as early diagnostic tools for prolonged operative time in patients with fluorescent laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- Updates on Antibiotic Regimens in Acute Cholecystitis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: An alternative method to standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLC) is the "fundus first" method (FFLC). Concerns have been raised that FFLC can lead to misinterpretation of important anatomical structures, thus causing complications of a more serious kind than SLC. Comparisons between the methods are complicated by the fact that FFLC is often used as a rescue procedure in complicated cases. To avoid confounding related to this we conducted a population-based study with comparisons on the surgeon level. Method: In GallRiks, the Swedish registry for Gallbladder surgery, we stratified all cholecystectomies performed 2006-2020 in three groups: surgeries carried out by surgeons that uses FFLC in <20 % of the cases (N = 150,119), in 20-79 % of the cases (N = 10,212) and in 80 % or more of the cases (N = 3176). We compared the groups with logistic regression, adjusting for sex, age, surgical experience, year of surgery and history of acute cholecystitis. All surgical complications (bleeding, gallbladder perforation, visceral perforation, infection, and bile duct injury) were included as outcome. A separate analysis was done with regards to operation time. Results: No difference in incidence of all surgical complications or bile duct injury were seen between groups. The rates of bleeding (OR 0.34 [0.14-0.86]) and gallbladder perforation (OR 0.61 [0.45-0.82]) were significantly lower in the "fundus first > 80% group" and the operative time was shorter (OR 0.76 [0.69-0.83]). Conclusion: In this study including >160,000 cholecystectomies, both methods was found to be equally safe. Key message: During laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the standard method of dissection and fundus first dissection are equally safe surgical techniques. Surgeons need to learn both methods to be able to use the one most appropriate for each individual case.
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.