ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
A comparative study of 2908 cases of transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus 1952 cases of traditional three-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a single center.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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
objectiveTo summarize the clinical experience of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) in our hospital, and to explore the safety and feasibility of its widespread application.
methodsThis retrospective analysis summarized the clinical data of 2908 patients with benign gallbladder diseases who underwent SILC and 1952 patients who underwent traditional three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) at the Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery of 363 Hospital from May 2024 to March 2026. The study compared the surgical duration, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospitalization duration, hospitalization costs, postoperative pain scores, complication rates, postoperative wound esthetic satisfaction scores, and overall surgical satisfaction between the two groups.
resultsThere were no statistically significant differences or the effect size was extremely small in objective clinical indicators such as operative duration, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, and hospitalization costs between the SILC group and the LC group. Although the complication incidence rate showed a statistically significant difference between the two groups (P < 0.05), the effect size was extremely small (Cramer's V = 0.0345). Patients in the SILC group exhibited significantly lower postoperative pain scores at 24 h compared to those in the LC group (P < 0.001). Additionally, the SILC group scored higher in postoperative cosmetic satisfaction and overall satisfaction than the LC group, with the difference being statistically significant (P < 0.001).
conclusionThere is no significant difference in safety and efficacy between SILC and LC and both demonstrate excellent postoperative cosmetic outcomes, making them worthy of widespread clinical application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42536092What 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.