Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39609785›Full record

ReviewBMC surgery2024

Evolution of minimally invasive cholecystectomy: a narrative review.

Changjin Nam, Jun Suh Lee, Ji Su Kim, Tae Yoon Lee, Young Chul Yoon

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. A History of Cholecystectomy.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Changjin NamKyungpook National University Medical College, Daegu, Republic of Korea.
Jun Suh LeeDepartment of Surgery, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea. rudestock@gmail.com.
Ji Su KimDepartment of Surgery, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Tae Yoon LeeDepartment of Surgery, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Young Chul YoonDepartment of Surgery, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopic cholecystectomy, being a prevalent abdominal surgical procedure, has transitioned through various innovative stages aimed at reducing the procedure's invasiveness. These stages encompass Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (SILC), Mini Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (MLC), Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES), and Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (RALC). The purpose of this review is to trace the evolution of minimally invasive cholecystectomy techniques, assess their status, and identify emerging trends and challenges in the field.

methodAn extensive review was performed to explore the evolution and characteristics of SILC, MLC, NOTES, and RALC. The approach involved an in-depth examination of literature available on PubMed, coupled with a critical assessment of surgical outcomes, associated complications, and technical hurdles posed by these methods.

resultsSILC, despite its potential for reduced scarring, exhibits an elevated risk of bile duct damage and incisional hernia occurrences. MLC, mirroring the standard technique closely, presents minor benefits without amplifying postoperative complications, hence, positing itself as a feasible choice for routine elective cholecystectomy. NOTES, although still facing technical challenges, the hybrid transvaginal procedure is gaining clinical interest. RALC, heralded for its augmented precision and dexterity, emerges as a potential future avenue, although necessitating further exploration to ascertain its efficacy and safety.

conclusionThe progression of laparoscopic cholecystectomy methodologies embodies the surgical society's aspiration to minimize invasiveness whilst enhancing patient outcomes. This review endeavors to offer a structured discourse on SILC, MLC, NOTES, and RALC, aspiring to aid the ongoing deliberation on the judicious selection of surgical techniques in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Cholecystectomy, LaparoscopicRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresNatural Orifice Endoscopic SurgeryCholecystectomyGallbladder diseaseLaparoscopyMinimally invasive surgerySurgical technique

Identifiers

PMID39609785
PMCPMC11606199

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.