ArticleCureus2026
Evaluating the Efficacy of Body-First Technique Compared to the Conventional Technique in Achieving a Critical View of Safety in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic cholecystectomy (LAP-C) is the definitive treatment for symptomatic cholelithiasis, yet bile duct injury (BDI), primarily caused by anatomical misidentification, remains a formidable risk. The Critical View of Safety (CVS) achievement will prevent BDI, but its consistent attainment is technically demanding in inflamed or distorted anatomy. The body-first dissection technique has been proposed as an alternative approach to improve CVS achievement, though high-quality prospective evidence remains limited. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) was designed to systematically compare the two methods.
methodsIn this single-center, single-blinded RCT, 88 patients undergoing elective LAP-C were enrolled, after exclusion 80 patients were randomized into two groups: Group A (body-first technique) and Group B (conventional technique). The primary endpoints were the rate and quality of CVS achievement, and the duration of surgery. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative complications, recovery of gastrointestinal function, postoperative pain and nausea, inflammatory marker C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, and patient satisfaction assessed by the RAND-36 questionnaire at discharge, one month, and three months, and a p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsThe body-first approach demonstrated a higher rate of satisfactory CVS than the conventional approach (92.5% vs. 75.0%); however, the difference did not reach statistical significance on two-sided Fisher's exact testing (p=0.066). On multivariable logistic regression, the conventional technique was independently associated with significantly lower odds of CVS achievement (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.10, 95% CI 0.02-0.66, p=0.017). Operative duration was comparable between groups (76.3 vs. 84.8 minutes, p=0.438). After multivariable adjustment, surgical technique was not independently associated with operative duration (β = 6.54 minutes, SE=6.48; p=0.316), whereas increasing operative difficulty (Modified Nassar grade) was the only independent predictor of longer operative duration (β=13.32 minutes per one-grade increase, 95% CI 7.11-19.53; p < 0.001). The body-first group had significantly lower postoperative pain (OR: 5.74, 95% CI: 2.15-15.3, p=0.001), faster gastrointestinal recovery (OR: 3.12, 95% CI: 1.25-7.75, p=0.014).
conclusionThe body-first technique confers a higher rate of achieving CVS, promotes faster gastrointestinal recovery, and reduces postoperative pain compared to the conventional technique. The benefits in safety and recovery make it a favorable alternative to the conventional technique in LAP-C.
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.