ArticleRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)2025
Is the presence of a catheter and time of surgery effective in conversion to open surgery in interval cholecystectomies after percutaneous drainage in acute cholecystitis?
Article in Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThere are no guidelines regarding intraoperative or preoperative catheter removal in patients eligible for surgery following percutaneous drainage in acute cholecystitis. In this study, we evaluated the factors affecting the conversion to open surgery after percutaneous drainage and analyzed the relationship between catheter presence and time to operation in interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
methodsIn total, 50 patients with acute cholecystitis who underwent interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy after percutaneous drainage were retrospectively evaluated and grouped according to conversion to open surgery (Group 1) and non (Group 2). Factors that may be associated with conversion to open surgery and the presence of an intraoperative catheter were evaluated, and the time to surgery was calculated.
resultsThere were 28 (56%) men and 22 (44%) women, and the mean age was 64 (±13) years. The severity of acute cholecystitis was moderate in 37 (74%) patients and severe in 13 (26%). When the groups were compared, no statistically significant difference was found between the presence of a catheter, the time of surgery 8 weeks before and after, and the conversion to open surgery. Postoperative hospitalization days were significantly higher in Group 1 (p=0.014).
conclusionIn patients who underwent interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy after insertion of a percutaneous drainage catheter in acute cholecystitis, the presence of a catheter and the waiting time for surgery after catheter insertion do not affect the rates of conversion to open surgery and complications.
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.