Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35469110›Full record

Trial reportLangenbeck's archives of surgery2022

Active aspiration versus simple compression to remove residual gas from the abdominal cavity after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized clinical trial.

Ahmed Abdelsamad, Lars Ruehe, Lutz Peter Lerch, Ehab Ibrahim, Lars Daenenfaust, Mike Ralf Langenbach

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ahmed AbdelsamadDepartment of General and Abdominal Surgery, Evangelical Hospital, Wiedenbrücker Str. 33, 59555, Lippstadt, Germany. ahmed6361410@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5451-4504
Lars RueheDepartment of Radiology, Evangelical Hospital, Lippstadt, Germany.
Lutz Peter LerchDepartment of General and Abdominal Surgery, Evangelical Hospital, Wiedenbrücker Str. 33, 59555, Lippstadt, Germany.
Ehab IbrahimDepartment of General and Abdominal Surgery, Evangelical Hospital, Wiedenbrücker Str. 33, 59555, Lippstadt, Germany.
Lars DaenenfaustInstitute for Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Mike Ralf LangenbachDepartment of General and Abdominal Surgery, Evangelical Hospital, Wiedenbrücker Str. 33, 59555, Lippstadt, Germany.
Witten/Herdecke University · DEUniversity of Cologne · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAfter laparoscopic surgical procedures, residual gas in the abdominal cavity can cause post-operative pain, which is commonly located in the shoulder region. Previous studies suggested that post-laparoscopy pain can be prevented by active suctioning of intraabdominal gas at the end of surgery.

methodsThis randomized controlled trial (registered at DRKS 00,023,286) compared active suctioning versus manual compression in their ability to reduce pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy were eligible for trial participation. The primary outcome measure was post-operative pain intensity after 12 h. All the patients were examined by MRI scanning to quantify the intraabdominal gas volume after the intervention.

resultsAs planned, 60 patients were recruited. The two groups (n = 30 each) were very similar at the end of surgery. Active suctioning reduced the amount of residual pneumoperitoneum more than simple compression (median volume 1.5 versus 3.0 ml, p = 0.002). The primary outcome measure, abdominal pain after 12 h, was slightly lower in the intervention group (- 0.5 points, 95% confidence interval + 0.5 to - 1.7), but without reaching statistical significance (p = 0.37). After 12 h, shoulder pain was present in 10 patients in each group (p = 1.0). Independent of group assignment, however, residual gas volume was significantly associated with higher pain intensity.

conclusionsActive suctioning appears to have only a minor preventive effect on post-laparoscopy pain, probably because evacuation of the pneumoperitoneum remains incomplete in some patients. Other more effective maneuvers for gas removal should be preferred.

Indexed as

Abdominal CavityCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicLaparoscopyPneumoperitoneumHumansPneumoperitoneum, ArtificialPostoperative PainShoulder PainLaparoscopic cholecystectomyPneumoperitoneum evacuationPost-laparoscopy pain

Identifiers

PMID35469110
OpenAlexW4224320416

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.