Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39148006›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2024

Robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery for gallbladder cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Madeline Yen Min Chee, Andrew Guan Ru Wu, Khi-Yung Fong, Ashley Yew, Ye Xin Koh, Brian K P Goh

Abstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

6 authors.

Madeline Yen Min CheeDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital and National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-0198-3670
Andrew Guan Ru WuMinistry of Health Holdings Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Khi-Yung FongMinistry of Health Holdings Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Ashley YewMinistry of Health Holdings Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Ye Xin KohDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital and National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Brian K P GohDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital and National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. bsgkp@hotmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMinimally invasive oncological resections have become increasingly widespread in the surgical management of cancers. However, the role of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for gallbladder cancer (GBC) remains unclear. We aim to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis of existing literature to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic and robotic surgery in the management of GBC compared to open surgery (OS) by comparing outcomes.

methodsA literature search of the PubMed/MEDLINE (2000 to December 2021) and EMBASE (2000 to December 2021) databases was conducted. The primary outcome studied was overall survival, and secondary outcomes studied were postoperative morbidity, severe complications, incidence of bile leak, length of hospital stay, operation time, R0 resection rate, local recurrence and lymph node yield.

resultsThirty-two full-text articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis with a total of 5883 patients undergoing either OS or MIS (laparoscopic or robotic) for GBC. 1- and 2-stage meta-analyses did not reveal any significant differences between OS, laparoscopic and robotic surgery in terms of overall survival, R0 resection, lymph node harvest, local recurrence and post-operative complications. Patients who underwent OS had significantly longer hospitalization stay and intra-operative blood loss compared to those who underwent laparoscopic or robotic surgery. Network meta-analysis did not reveal any significant differences between post-operative and survival outcomes of laparoscopic vs robotic surgery groups.

conclusionThis network meta-analysis suggests that both laparoscopic and robotic surgery are safe and effective approaches in the surgical management of GBC, with post-operative and survival outcomes comparable to OS. An MIS approach may also lead to shorter hospitalization stay, less intraoperative blood loss and post-operative complications compared to OS. There was no obvious benefit of either MIS approach (laparoscopic versus robotic) over the other.

Indexed as

Gallbladder NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicHumansLength of StayOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsCholecystectomyGallbladder cancerLaparoscopicMeta-analysisMinimally invasiveRobotic

Identifiers

PMID39148006

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.