Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38706518›Full record

ArticleSurgery open science2024

Safety of cholecystectomy performed by surgeons who prefer fundus first versus surgeons who prefer a standard laparoscopic approach.

Åsa Edergren, Gabriel Sandblom, Mikael Franko, Thorhallur Agustsson, Yucel Cengiz, Gona Jaafar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. 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 · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Updates on Antibiotic Regimens in Acute Cholecystitis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024
    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

6 authors.

Åsa EdergrenDepartment of Clinical Science and Education Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institute & Department of Surgery, Södersjukhuset, Sjukhusbacken 10, 11883 Stockholm, Sweden.
Gabriel SandblomDepartment of Clinical Science and Education Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institute & Department of Surgery, Södersjukhuset, Sjukhusbacken 10, 11883 Stockholm, Sweden.
Mikael FrankoDepartment of Clinical Science and Education Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institute, Sjukhusbacken 10, 11883 Stockholm, Sweden.
Thorhallur AgustssonDepartment of Clinical Science and Education Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institute & Department of Surgery, Södersjukhuset, Sjukhusbacken 10, 11883 Stockholm, Sweden.
Yucel CengizDepartment of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences, Umeå University, 90185 Umeå, Sweden.
Gona JaafarDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institute & Department of Emergency Care, Karolinska University Hospital, Ana Futura, Alfred Nobels Allé 8, 141 52 Huddinge, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Bile duct injuryCholecystectomy/adverse effectsCohort studiesGallbladder surgeryIntraoperative complications

Identifiers

PMID38706518
PMCPMC11066465

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.