ReviewUpdates in surgery2026
Outcomes and complications of three-incision versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Updates in surgery, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is widely regarded as the gold-standard for the management and treatment of gallbladder disease. Traditionally, LC has been performed using multiple small incisions to allow placement of trocars and instruments. However, single-incision laparoscopic surgery has emerged as a potential alternative, purportedly offering cosmetic and recovery benefits, though the evidence for these advantages remains inconsistent in the literature.
methodsNine studies published between 2010 and 2019, enrolling a total of 1,884 patients, were eligible for inclusion. A systematic review and meta-analysis methodology was employed adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Outcomes included conversion to open or additional-port surgery, operative time, postoperative hospital stay, biliary complications, postoperative wound infection, port-site (umbilical) hernia, and postoperative pain. Sensitivity analysis were performed using the leave-one-out method and restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCT-only analysis).
resultsThere was no statistically significant difference between single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and three-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TILC) in terms of conversion rate (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.64-1.72; P = 0.84), postoperative hospital stay (MD - 0.05 days, 95% CI - 0.11 to 0.02; P = 0.14), wound infection (OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.58-3.16; P = 0.48), port-site umbilical hernia (OR 1.80, 95% CI 0.17-19.60; P = 0.63), biliary complications, or postoperative pain (MD - 0.07, 95% CI - 0.21 to 0.07; P = 0.32; I
conclusionIn carefully selected low-risk patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy, SILC is technically feasible and is not associated with significantly higher rates of conversion, wound infection, biliary complications, port-site hernia, prolonged hospital stay, or pain compared with TILC. However, SILC is associated with a statistically significant increase in operative time. These findings support SILC as an acceptable alternative to TILC in elective, low-complexity settings at experienced centres. They should not be extrapolated to patients with acute cholecystitis, significant obesity, or prior abdominal surgery, for whom the evidence base remains insufficient. High-quality randomized controlled trials including these populations are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42417939What 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.