| Title |
Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: does it work? A systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-016-4757-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marco Maria Lirici, Simone Maria Tierno, Cecilia Ponzano |
| Abstract |
Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) has been widely introduced into the clinical practice, but the real clinical benefits for patients still remain a matter of debate. We conducted a systematic review, according to the PRISMA guidelines comparing clinical and peri-operative outcomes of SILC and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). A literature search, including only randomised controlled trials (RCTs), was performed via PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library and Embase database. The reviewers extracted data from the manuscripts of selected articles including patient demographics, operative time, morbidity rate, post-operative length of stay, conversion rate, cost data, pain and satisfaction with cosmetic results. Seventeen RCTs matching the inclusion criteria were finally selected for the analysis. A total of 1293 patients were involved in the review, including 663 (51.3 %) patients who have undergone SILC and 630 (48.7 %) patients who have undergone CLC. Post-operative pain was significantly worse in SILC patients in four studies, in CLC patients in four studies, while in the remnants seven studies, no differences in pain scores were found. Data on satisfaction for post-operative cosmetics were significantly better for SILC patients in all studies but two. Operating time was significantly longer in SILC group while there is no statistically significant difference in conversion rate. Morbidity rate was similar in both groups, as was the incidence of bile duct injuries. Costs were significantly higher in SILC group. SILC was considered a more challenging procedure in all studies. The role of SILC is still controversial. Until now, no real significant benefit has been proven: overall satisfaction is the only clear advantage of SILC, and this is mainly related to cosmetic results. Indications to SILC are mainly limited to patients with uncomplicated disease, with BMI ≤ 30 kg/m(2), whose surgery is unlikely to be converted to an open or multiport approach. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 47 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 11% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Researcher | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 19% |
| Unknown | 12 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 43% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 17 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 October 2022.
All research outputs
#7,539,423
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#1,703
of 6,096 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,825
of 298,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#21
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,096 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 298,419 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.