ReviewBMC surgery2024
Evolution of minimally invasive cholecystectomy: a narrative review.
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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Based on bibliometric visual analysis, the current status and development trends of research on complications after cholecystectomy.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Laparoscopic cholecystectomy using a wireless intelligent endoscopic system versus a conventional wired system: a retrospective study.BMC surgery · 2026Trial
- Trial
- The effect of video-assisted education on postoperative outcomes after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomized controlled trial.PEC innovation · 2026Article
- A History of Cholecystectomy.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2026Article
- Clinical efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery after neoadjuvant therapy in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Clinical application of modified suspension-assisted transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy in overweight/obese patients.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Relieving the pressure: the effect of active carbon dioxide aspiration on postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Factors influencing the difficulty of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A review.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery: history and current development.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Minilap-assisted modified single-incisionPeerJ · 2026Article
- Robotic Gastrointestinal Surgery Compared to Conventional Approaches: An Umbrella Review of Clinical and Economic Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy with DEXTERSurgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Asymptomatic gallstone disease: Re-evaluating the threshold for surgical options in the era of precision medicine.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Review
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.