Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40046348›Full record

ReviewCureus2025

Comparing Single-Incision Cholecystectomy and Multiple-Incision Cholecystectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Postoperative Complications.

Diya Linkwinstar, Anu Shine, Haiqa Naseem, Syeda Zara, Siti Jabbir, Kapilraj Ravendran

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Diya LinkwinstarInternal Medicine, Medical University Sofia, Sofia, BGR.
Anu ShineInternal Medicine, Medical University Sofia, Sofia, BGR.
Haiqa NaseemInternal Medicine, Medical University Pleven, Pleven, BGR.
Syeda ZaraTrauma and Orthopaedics, Bedfordshire Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Luton, GBR.
Siti JabbirGeneral Surgery, The Hillingdon Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Uxbridge, GBR.
Kapilraj RavendranTrauma and Orthopaedics, East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust, London, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

meta-analysismultiport laparoscopic cholecystectomypostoperative painrecoverysingle-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomywound infection

Identifiers

PMID40046348
PMCPMC11881996

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.