ArticleHepatobiliary surgery and nutrition2024
Laparoscopic versus open surgery in treating patients with gallbladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Essential Updates 2023/2024: Minimally Invasive Surgery for Biliary Tract Cancer.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Review
- Minimally invasive radical surgery for gallbladder cancer: a single-unit experience of over 200 patients.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic surgery for gallbladder cancer: is skepticism still justified?Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2025Article
- Gallbladder adenocarcinoma diagnosed retrospectively after initial resection of abdominal wall adenocarcinoma with unidentified primary source: a case report and review of the literature.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Concerns over the security of laparoscopic radical operation for gallbladder cancer (GBC) persist. This systematic review and meta-analysis attempted to compare the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery (LS) versus open surgery (OS) in the treatment of GBC. Methods: The PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched from inception to July 18, 2022. Literature search, quality assessment, and data extraction were completed independently and in duplicate. Effect-size estimates expressed as weighted mean difference (WMD) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were derived under the random-effects model. Results: A total of 27 independent studies including 2,868 participants were meta-analyzed. Significance was noted for intraoperative blood loss (WMD: -117.194, 95% CI: -170.188 to 64.201, P<0.001), harvested lymph nodes (WMD: -1.023, 95% CI: -1.776 to -0.269, P=0.008), postoperative hospital stay (WMD: -3.555, 95% CI: -4.509 to -2.601, P<0.001), postoperative morbidity (OR: 0.596, 95% CI: 0.407 to 0.871, P=0.008), overall survival rate at 2-year (OR: 1.524, 95% CI: 1.143 to 2.031, P=0.004), T2 survival at 1-year (OR: 1.799, 95% CI: 1.777 to 2.749, P<0.01) and 2-year (OR: 2.026, 95% CI: 1.392 to 2.949, P<0.001), as well as T3 survival at 1-year (OR: 2.669, 95% CI: 1.564 to 4.555, P<0.001) and 2-year (OR: 2.300, 95% CI: 1.308 to 4.046, P=0.004). Subgroup analyses revealed that ethnicity, incidental GBC, sample size, and follow-up period were possible sources of heterogeneity. There was a low probability of publication bias for all outcomes except postoperative morbidity. Conclusions: Our findings indicated that LS statistically had better 2-year survival rates, less intraoperative bleeding, shorter hospitalization times, and lower rates of complications than OS. However, the superiority and even the safety of LS still remain an open question due to the impact of incidental GBC, unaccounted heterogeneity, publication bias, lymph node dissection, and port-site metastasis.
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.