ArticleCureus2026
Laparoscopic Versus Open Cholecystectomy in Gangrenous Cholecystitis: A Retrospective Comparative Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
introductionGangrenous cholecystitis (GC) is a severe form of acute cholecystitis associated with increased operative difficulty and postoperative morbidity. Although open cholecystectomy is traditionally preferred, advances in minimally invasive surgery have expanded the role of laparoscopy. However, the optimal surgical approach to GC remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy in patients with GC. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective observational study was conducted at the Department of General Surgery at Deccan College of Medical Sciences, a tertiary care cente in Hyderabad, India. It included adult patients with intraoperatively confirmed GC who underwent laparoscopic or open cholecystectomy at a tertiary care center over a two-year period. Demographic data, operative parameters, intraoperative complications, postoperative morbidity, and length of hospital stay were analyzed and compared between groups.
resultsSeventy-nine patients were included, of which 34 underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy and 45 underwent open cholecystectomy. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between the groups. The mean operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (98.5 ± 25.4 min) than in the open group (86.2 ± 22.1 min; p = 0.023). The intraoperative complication rates were similar (p = 0.87). Conversion to open surgery occurred in eight (23.5%) laparoscopic cases. The total number of postoperative complications showed a non-significant reduction following laparoscopic cholecystectomy (p = 0.052), not meeting the predefined threshold for statistical significance (p < 0.05). The median hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (6 vs. 8 days, p = 0.039).
conclusionLaparoscopic cholecystectomy is a safe and feasible option for GC, offering shorter hospital stay despite a longer operative time. A laparoscopic-first approach, with a low threshold for conversion, is recommended for appropriately selected patients.
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.