Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40897880›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2025

Safety and efficacy of ultrasonic dissection versus electrocautery dissection in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ibrahim Moqbel, Mahmoud Albashier, Mario Maged Tawadros, Mohamed Basyouni Helal, Ahmed Hussein Abdelbaset, Ahmed Ihab Abdelmeguid, Razan Sulieman Abdalqader, Mohamed Youssef Abdou Youssef, Ashraf Abdelmonem Elsayed

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

9 authors.

Ibrahim MoqbelFaculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt. ibrahim.mo.moqbel@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-1873-1422
Mahmoud AlbashierFaculty of Medicine, Damietta University, New Damietta, Egypt.
Mario Maged TawadrosFaculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Mohamed Basyouni HelalFaculty of Medicine, Menoufia University, Menoufia, Egypt.
Ahmed Hussein AbdelbasetAl-Azher Faculty of Medicine, New Damietta University, New Damietta, Egypt.
Ahmed Ihab AbdelmeguidFaculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Razan Sulieman AbdalqaderFaculty of Medicine, Hashemite University, Zarqa, Jordan.
Mohamed Youssef Abdou YoussefFaculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.
Ashraf Abdelmonem ElsayedGeneral Surgery Department, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the current gold standard for the management of acute cholecystitis, where ultrasonic dissection and electrocautery dissection are the two primary techniques used, however, it remains uncertain which approach is safer and more effective.

objectivesThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of ultrasonic dissection versus electrocautery dissection in LC for acute cholecystitis, particularly in operative time, hospital stay, blood loss, intraoperative and postoperative complications.

methodA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, Web of Science (WOS), EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL up to January 7, 2025, following PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ultrasonic dissection and electrocautery dissection in LC for acute cholecystitis. Data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment were independently performed. Statistical analyses were conducted using Review Manager (RevMan 5.4), with heterogeneity assessed using I

resultsA total of 28 RCTs, comprising 3383 patients (1720 in the ultrasonic dissection group and 1663 in the electrocautery group), were included. The meta-analysis demonstrated that ultrasonic dissection significantly reduced operative time (- 9.13 min, 95% CI - 9.65 to - 8.61, p < 0.0001, I

conclusionUltrasonic dissection demonstrated advantages over electrocautery dissection for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with acute cholecystitis, including reduced operative time, lower blood loss, and shorter hospital stays. While some heterogeneity was observed among studies, ultrasonic dissection appears to be a safer and more efficient technique.

Indexed as

Cholecystectomy, LaparoscopicCholecystitis, AcuteDissectionElectrocoagulationUltrasonic Surgical ProceduresBlood Loss, SurgicalHumansLength of StayOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeAcute cholecystitisElectrocautery dissectionLaparoscopic cholecystectomyUltrasonic dissection

Identifiers

PMID40897880
PMCPMC12500781

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.