ArticleBMC surgery2025
Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with inflexible laparoscopic instruments and laparoscopy: a single-center experience of 533 cases.
Article in BMC surgery, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has been widely performed as the gold standard for BGDs. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) was considered as an option for minimizing surgical injuries and improving outcomes. However, the benefit of this novel technique, especially with conventional and inflexible instruments and laparoscopy, is still controversial. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective cohort study analyzed 958 consecutive cases (533 SILC vs. 425 CLC) from January 2023 to March 2024. SILC was performed via a single transumbilical incision with straight and inflexible instruments whereas CLC with traditional three-port strategy. Information of patients' demographic characteristics and pathological diagnoses was collected and analyzed. Comparative outcomes assessment included validated measures: SF-36 QoL indices, VAS pain scores, Vancouver Scar Scale assessments, hospitalization duration, and Clavien-Dindo complication grading.
resultsCases from two groups showed similar demographic characteristics and pathological diagnoses. They also had comparable surgical time, estimated intraoperative blood loss and hospital costs. Sixteen cases required supplementary trocars for technical challenges. The SILC group exhibited superior scar satisfaction, though no significant intergroup differences existed in hospitalization duration, postoperative pain scores, or wound infection rates. Longitudinal analysis revealed reduced chronic pain and diarrhea incidence in SILC patients. Six-month postoperative SF-36 assessments showed significant improvements in SILC recipients for Bodily Pain, Vitality, and Role-Emotional domains.
conclusionThe present study demonstrated SILC with conventional and inflexible instruments to be safe and feasible. SILC was found to be non-inferior to CLC. This technique demonstrated certain advantages, particularly in improving patient satisfaction with wound pain and appearance, while maintaining comparable surgical outcomes, hospital stay duration, and postoperative complication rates to those of CLC.
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.