SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2024
Fenestrating vs reconstituting laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Postoperative outcomes of reconstituting versus fenestrating subtotal cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.BMC surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Suture Versus Non-Suture Closure of the Cystic Duct Orifice During Fenestrating Laparoscopic Subtotal Cholecystectomy: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Robotic versus pure laparoscopic approach to subtotal fenestrating cholecystectomy: does the robot improve postoperative outcomes?Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Clinical Outcomes and Complications Following Subtotal Cholecystectomy: A Single-Centre Cohort Analysis.Cureus · 2025Article
- Review
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
introductionLaparoscopic cholecystectomy is one of the most frequently performed procedures by general surgeons. Strategies for minimizing bile duct injuries including use of the critical view of safety method, as outlined by the SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program, are not always possible. Subtotal cholecystectomy has emerged as a safe "bail-out" maneuver to avoid iatrogenic bile duct injury in these difficult cases. Strasberg and colleagues defined two main types of subtotal cholecystectomies: reconstituting and fenestrating. As there is a paucity of studies comparing the two subtypes of laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy (LSC), we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the reconstituting and fenestrating techniques for managing the difficult gallbladder.
methodsA search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was conducted to identify prospective and retrospective studies comparing fenestrating and reconstituting LSC. The outcomes of interest were bile leak, reoperation, readmissions, completion cholecystectomy, postoperative ERCP, and retained CBD stones.
resultsWe screened 2855 studies and included 13 studies with a total population of 985 patients. Among them, 330 patients (33.5%) underwent reconstituting LSC and 655 patients (55.5%) underwent fenestrating LSC. Twelve studies were retrospective, and one was prospective. Notably, reconstituting STC was associated with decreased incidence of bile leak (OR 0.29; CI 95% 0.16-0.55; p = 0.0002; I
conclusionsFenestrating LSC leads to a higher incidence of postoperative bile leakage. In addition, our sensitivity analysis revealed that the fenestrating technique is associated with a higher incidence of postoperative ERCP. Further randomized trials and studies with longer-term follow-up are still necessary to better understand these techniques in the difficult gallbladder cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39266763What 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.