SynthesisBMC surgery2026
Postoperative outcomes of reconstituting versus fenestrating subtotal cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.
Synthesis in BMC 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
introductionLaparoscopic cholecystectomy remains the gold-standard treatment for symptomatic gallbladder disease; however, in situations where safe dissection is not achievable, subtotal cholecystectomy has emerged as a reliable alternative to minimize operative risk. Given the technical differences between the reconstituting and fenestrating approaches and the inconsistent evidence regarding their postoperative outcomes, this systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to provide a comprehensive comparison of these two surgical techniques. The present study incorporates more recently published studies and provides an updated synthesis of the available evidence. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study was conducted as a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was performed across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, SID, Magiran, and IranMedex using relevant MeSH terms and keywords. The literature search was conducted up to December 2025. Eligible studies were systematically analyzed using random-effects meta-analysis; risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and results were visualized using the ROBVIS tool.
resultsThirteen studies involving 950 patients (reconstituting: n = 324; fenestrating: n = 626) were included. Reconstituting subtotal cholecystectomy was associated with a significantly lower incidence of postoperative bile leak compared with the fenestrating technique (OR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.16-0.55; P = 0.0002; I² =34%). No statistically significant differences were observed for postoperative ERCP (OR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.17-1.07; P = 0.071; I² = 64.7%) or reoperation rates (OR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.19-1.61; P = 0.276; I² = 0%).
conclusionBased on low-certainty GRADE evidence, this meta-analysis indicates that reconstituting subtotal cholecystectomy is associated with a significantly lower risk of postoperative bile leak compared with the fenestrating technique, with low-to-moderate heterogeneity. Although the overall direction of effect for postoperative ERCP and reoperation also favored the reconstituting technique, these differences did not reach statistical significance, likely reflecting limited statistical power and heterogeneity; these results should be considered hypothesis-generating. Overall, the reconstituting technique appears to offer a safer postoperative profile, though confirmation by prospective studies is warranted.
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.