ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal cancer2026
Port Site Excision During Completion Extended Cholecystectomy for Incidental Gallbladder Cancer - A Scoping Review.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal cancer, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCompletion extended cholecystectomy (CEC) is the standard treatment for incidental gallbladder cancer (iGBC) to reduce early recurrence and improve survival. However, the necessity of laparoscopic port site excision (PSE) during CEC remains controversial. This scoping review evaluates whether routine PSE is warranted in the management of iGBC.
methodsA systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library using keywords such as "incidental gallbladder carcinoma," "radical cholecystectomy," "extended cholecystectomy," "port site excision," "port site recurrence," and "port site metastasis."
resultsThree original studies involving 503 iGBC patients were analyzed, comparing outcomes between those who underwent PSE and those who did not. Of the 170 patients who received PSE, 14 (8.2%) had malignant port site involvement. Recurrence rates were comparable between the PSE and non-PSE groups (36% vs. 40%). Although the median overall survival was numerically higher in the PSE group (36-89 months vs. 30-45 months), this difference was not statistically significant.
conclusionRoutine PSE during CEC for iGBC may not be necessary, as it does not significantly reduce distant recurrence or improve overall survival.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41779281What 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.