Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39266763›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2024

Fenestrating vs reconstituting laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Sarah Bueno Motter, Sérgio Mazzola Poli de Figueiredo, Patrícia Marcolin, Bruna Oliveira Trindade, Gabriela R Brandao, Jennifer M Moffett

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Sarah Bueno MotterMedical School, Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre, Rua Sarmento Leite, 245, Centro Histórico, Porto Alegre, 90050-170, Brazil. sbuenomotter@gmail.com.
Sérgio Mazzola Poli de FigueiredoDepartment of General Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Center for Abdominal Core Health, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Patrícia MarcolinMedical School, Universidade Federal da Fronteira Sul, Passo Fundo, Brazil.
Bruna Oliveira TrindadeMedical School, Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre, Rua Sarmento Leite, 245, Centro Histórico, Porto Alegre, 90050-170, Brazil.
Gabriela R BrandaoMedical School, Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre, Rua Sarmento Leite, 245, Centro Histórico, Porto Alegre, 90050-170, Brazil.
Jennifer M MoffettDepartment of Surgery, University of Texas Medical Branch, 301 University Blvd, Galveston, TX, USA.ORCID 0009-0009-3545-9237

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cholecystectomy, LaparoscopicBile DuctsHumansPostoperative ComplicationsBile leakFenestratingGallbladderLaparoscopic cholecystectomyReconstitutingSubtotal cholecystectomy

Identifiers

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.