ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2024
Open versus laparoscopic completion cholecystectomy in patients with previous open partial cholecystectomy: a retrospective comparative study.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Laparoscopic Versus Open Cholecystectomy in Gangrenous Cholecystitis: A Retrospective Comparative Study.Cureus · 2026Article
- Association of Metabolic Syndrome and Cholelithiasis: Understanding the Underlying Mechanism for Better Treatment.Mini reviews in medicinal chemistry · 2026Review
- The final cut: a multi-centre cohort study evaluating outcomes of robotic completion cholecystectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Some patients report recurrence or persistence of their manifestations after cholecystectomy, and retained gallstones may be a relevant etiology for their complaint. Completion cholecystectomy is advised for these cases to alleviate their manifestations. No previous studies have compared the outcomes of open versus laparoscopic outcomes in these patients, especially in patients who had initial open partial procedures. That is why we performed this study to report the perioperative outcomes of the two approaches in such patients. Methodology: This is a retrospective analysis of 80 patients who had a completion cholecystectomy in the authors' center (40 open and 40 laparoscopic cases) after initial open partial cholecystectomy. Results: The duration elapsed since the primary procedure had an average of 18 months in the open group and 21 months in the laparoscopic group. Abdominal pain and dyspepsia were the most common presentations. Some patients had stump cholecystitis or jaundice. The intraoperative assessment revealed either the residual gallbladder or a long cystic duct stump. Laparoscopy yielded shorter operative time, earlier oral intake, and shorter hospitalization periods compared to the open approach ( Conclusion: Previous open partial cholecystectomy does not hinder subsequent laparoscopic completion cholecystectomy. Additionally, laparoscopy is associated with better perioperative outcomes than the open approach.
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.