ArticleActa cirurgica brasileira2024
Comparison of postoperative outcomes between different dissection techniques during laparoscopic cholecystectomy in rabbits: randomized study.
Article in Acta cirurgica brasileira, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeLaparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard for the treatment of gallbladder (GB) disease in small animals. The aims of this study were to investigate and compare the effect of different types of dissectors during LC in rabbits; electrothermal bipolar vessel sealing device (EBVS-LigaSure) and standard electrosurgical dissection (bipolar Maryland) for dissection of the GB in LC, correlating liver function tests (LFTs) in pre and postoperative periods (days 0, 3, 7, 15); macroscopic checking 15 days after surgery through necropsy; histopathological, bacteriological through bacterial growth by culture and intraoperative complications.
methodsTwenty rabbits were used, group (n = 10) using EBVS for GB dissection and cystic duct seal (GLL), and group (n = 10) using bipolar dissecting forceps and EVBS for cystic duct seal (GLE).
resultsA higher concentration of alkaline phosphatase was observed on GLL 15 days after surgery when compared to GLE. In addition, GLE resulted in a higher concentration of alanine aminotransferase at three days when compared to GLL.
conclusionIn LC no significant statistical differences were found between EBVS and bipolar Maryland; both devices are equally safe and effective in LC. Further studies are required to evaluate the effectiveness of these devices in animals with gallbladder pathologies. Therefore, clinical studies are necessary.
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.