SynthesisUpdates in surgery2025
Critical view of safety approach vs. infundibular technique in laparoscopic cholecystectomy, which one is safer? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Updates in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Intraoperative Variations of Cystic Artery and Duct in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.ANZ journal of surgeryPooled it
- Predicting Postoperative Complications After Cholecystectomy for Acute Cholecystitis: Comparative Performance of Disease-Specific and General Prognostic Scores.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Development of anatomical metrics for objective quantification of critical view of safety.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) remains the gold standard procedure for the management of benign gallbladder disease. Recognizing the need to mitigate complications, mainly bile duct injury (BDI), various techniques for ductal identification during LC have emerged, including the "Critical View of Safety" (CVS) and the infundibular technique (IT). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assess and compare the outcomes of both techniques, with a primary focus on evaluating their impact on BDIs. A comprehensive search was conducted using PubMed and Scopus databases. The search focused on the surgical technique, incidences of minor and major BDIs, operative time, conversion rate, and length of stay, among patients undergoing LC for benign gallbladder disease. Our initial search retrieved 264 studies. After screening the unique studies against our predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria, only five met our criteria and were included. Additionally, a manual search identified eight more relevant studies, bringing the total number of included studies to 13. The total number of included patients was 4,837. Approximately two-thirds underwent LC using the CVS approach (61.1%), and 66.3% were female, with a mean age of 44.4 ± 11.2 years. The CVS approach was associated with a significant reduction in overall BDIs (RR = 0.36; 95% CI 0.18-0.71) and major BDIs (RR = 0.28; 95% CI 0.13-0.63). However, there were no significant differences in terms of minor BDIs, operative time, conversion rates, or length of stay. Our study demonstrated the superiority of the CVS approach in terms of reducing the incidence of overall and major BDIs compared to IT. However, our study revealed no other significant differences between the two techniques. Further research, including multicentric randomized controlled trials, will be necessary to further evaluate the efficacy of these techniques.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39527352What 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.