SynthesisMedicine2025
Extraction of gall bladder via umbilical port versus subxiphoid port for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Pakistan: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGallbladder retrieval site in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) may influence postoperative outcomes, yet there is limited consensus on the optimal port for extraction. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the umbilical port (UP) versus epigastric/subxiphoid port (EP/SP) in terms of clinical efficacy and safety.
methodsThis review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library was performed through June 2025. Only randomized controlled trials from Pakistan comparing EP and UP for LC were included. Outcomes assessed included postoperative pain at multiple intervals, retrieval time, port-site infection, and hospital stay. Data were synthesized using Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4.1 with random-effects models, and heterogeneity was assessed via I² statistics. Risk of bias was evaluated using Cochrane risk of bias (RoB 2.0).
resultsNine randomized controlled trials involving 1338 patients (672 EP, 666 UP) were analyzed. UP retrieval was associated with significantly lower postoperative pain at 1, 6, 24, and 48 hours. Retrieval time was shorter in the UP group (mean difference: -1.34 minutes; 95% confidence interval: -2.40 to -0.28; P = .01). Hospital stay was also reduced with UP (mean difference: -0.73 days; 95% confidence interval: -1.31 to -0.16; P = .01). Port-site infection rates showed no significant difference (risk ratio = 1.23; P = .90). Sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of key findings.
conclusionUP retrieval in LC offers favorable early postoperative outcomes, including reduced pain and shorter hospital stay, compared to the subxiphoid port. These results support UP as a potentially preferred approach.
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.