ArticleCureus2024
Comparative Assessment Between the Fundus-First Technique and Standard Laparoscopic Technique in Difficult Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.
Article in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic cholecystectomy is a standard minimally invasive technique for the treatment in gallstone disease. In difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomies, bailout strategies have been developed of which the fundus-first technique is one. The present study aims to compare the outcomes of the fundus-first technique against the standard laparoscopic approach in managing difficult cholecystectomy cases by focusing on intraoperative factors such as bleeding, bile duct injury, operative time, and postoperative complications like biliary leakage.
methodsA prospective comparative study was conducted over a period of two years (June 2022-May 2024) with 200 consecutive patients. All patients were classified as difficult cases based on the Tokyo 2018 guidelines. Detailed data collection included patient history, physical examination, laboratory investigations, and operative findings. The study's follow-up period was six weeks.
resultsThe fundus-first technique demonstrated significant advantages, with a reduction in operative time, fewer intraoperative complications, and better operative outcomes compared to the standard approach. Patients in the fundus-first group had a mean operative time of 91.50 minutes as compared to 143.75 minutes in the standard group (p < 0.001) and 88% completed operative outcome vs 51%(p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in postoperative complications such as bile leakage and bleeding between the two groups.
conclusionThe fundus-first technique offers a safer and more efficient alternative to the standard approach in difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy cases. By allowing better access to Calot's triangle, this method proves to be an effective bailout strategy, despite its steep learning curve. Further studies are needed to validate these findings and explore the broader application of the fundus-first technique in gallbladder surgeries.
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.