Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2026
Comparison of postoperative outcomes between conventional and low-impact laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. 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
backgroundLow-impact laparoscopy is an innovative surgical technique and aims to improve the postoperative recovery process and preserve surgical efficacy with lower insufflation pressure and minimal incisions. Our study aimed to compare the effects of low-impact laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LILC) and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) on postoperative pain, early complications, hospital stay and surgery duration.
methodsIn our study, a total of 104 patients were analyzed, 52 patients in the LILC group and 52 patients in the CLC group. In the LILC group, cholecystectomy was performed under low pressure (8 mmHg) and minimal incisions (3-5 mm). In the CLC group, cholecystectomy was performed under standard pressure (12 mmHg) and with standard incisions (5-10 mm). Pain was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) at 2, 4, 6, 12, 24 h after surgery. Additional analgesia requirements were recorded. Early complications as wound infection, bleeding, intra-abdominal abscess/collection were evaluated according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. The duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, and presence of nausea and vomiting were noted.
resultsVAS scores were significantly lower in the LILC group than in the control group at 2, 4, 6, 12, 24 h.The additional analgesia requirement was significantly lower in the LILC group at 2, 4, 6, 12 h.Nausea and vomiting were not present at the 12th hour in the LILC group. The duration of surgery was significantly lower in the LILC group.No significant difference was observed between the duration of hospital stay and the complication grade according to the Clavien‒Dindo classification.
conclusionsLILC was evaluated as a safe and effective method for reducing postoperative pain, reducing the need for additional analgesia and shortening the duration of surgery. It is a method that can be used safely by an experienced surgeon for appropriate patient selection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41249534What 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.