Short-term outcomes of single-site robotic cholecystectomy versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial
Surgical Endoscopy, ISSN: 1432-2218, Vol: 30, Issue: 7, Page: 3089-3097
2016
- 49Citations
- 82Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations49
- Citation Indexes47
- 47
- CrossRef38
- Clinical Citations1
- PubMed Guidelines1
- Policy Citations1
- Policy Citation1
- Captures82
- Readers82
- 82
Article Description
Background: Randomized studies could not demonstrate significant outcome benefit after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared to classic four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). The new robotic single-site platform might offer potential benefits on local inflammation and postoperative pain due to its technological advantages. This prospective randomized double-blind trial compared the short-term outcomes between single-incision robotic cholecystectomy (SIRC) and CLC. Methods: Two groups of 30 eligible patients were randomized for SIRC or CLC. During the first postoperative week, patients and study monitors were blinded to the type of procedure performed by four dressing tapes applied on the abdomen. Pain was assessed at 6 h and on day 1, 7 and 30 after surgery, along with a 1–10 cosmetic score. Results: No significant difference in postoperative pain occurred in the two groups at any time point nor for any of the abdominal sites. Nineteen (63 %) SIRC patients reported early postoperative pain in extra-umbilical sites. Intraoperative complications which might influence postoperative pain, such as minor bleeding and bile spillage, were similar in both groups and no conversions occurred. The cosmetic score 1 month postoperatively was higher for SIRC (p < 0.001). Two SIRC patients had wound infection, one of which developed an incisional hernia. Conclusions: SIRC does not offer any significant reduction of postoperative pain compared to CLC. SIRC patients unaware of their type of operation still report pain in extra-umbilical sites like after CLC. The cosmetic advantage of SIRC should be balanced against an increased risk of incisional hernias and higher costs. Trial registration number: ACTRN12614000119695 (http://www.anzctr.org.au).
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84945161980&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4601-3; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26497946; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00464-015-4601-3; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4601-3; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00464-015-4601-3
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know