ReviewCureus2025
Comparing Single-Incision Cholecystectomy and Multiple-Incision Cholecystectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Postoperative Complications.
Review in Cureus, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the gold standard for managing benign gallbladder disease, with the conventional multiport technique widely practiced. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) has emerged as an alternative, offering potential benefits such as improved cosmetic outcomes, reduced pain, and quicker recovery; however, its efficacy and safety compared to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) remain unclear. This meta-analysis, which followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, included 51 studies with 2,069 patients to compare clinical outcomes such as postoperative complications, pain, recovery time, and wound infection rates between SILC and CLC. SILC was associated with slightly higher postoperative pain scores (mean difference, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.09-0.27; p < 0.001), increased wound infection rates (OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.79; p < 0.001), and a marginally longer hospital stay (mean difference, 0.22 days; 95% CI, 0.16-0.28; p < 0.001). Recovery time showed no significant difference (mean difference, 0.01 days; 95% CI, -0.56 to 0.59; p = 0.73). While SILC offers a cosmetic advantage due to fewer incisions, it is associated with marginally less favorable clinical outcomes compared to CLC, highlighting the need for further research to assess its long-term efficacy and refined surgical techniques.
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.