Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38212468›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2024

Active gas aspiration in reducing pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Ahmed K Haneef, Elaf A Aljohani, Raghad S Alzahrani, Hanin M Alowaydhi, Ghadah A Alarif, Mohammed M Bukhari, Ahmed S Abdulhamid, Bassam AlRajhi, Amro H Ageel

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ahmed K HaneefCollege of Medicine, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Elaf A AljohaniCollege of Medicine, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Raghad S AlzahraniCollege of Medicine, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Raghdsaleh937@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-6356-8862
Hanin M AlowaydhiCollege of Medicine, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Ghadah A AlarifCollege of Medicine, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Mohammed M BukhariCollege of Medicine, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Ahmed S AbdulhamidCollege of Medicine, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Bassam AlRajhiCollege of Medicine, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Amro H AgeelCollege of Medicine, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPostoperative pain is a common issue following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This meta-analysis aimed to determine if active gas aspiration is more effective than passive gas aspiration in reducing postoperative pain and analgesic requirements. METHODOLOGY: The study conducted a systematic search of various databases, including Embase, Medline, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via Ovid. It also searched trial registries and reference lists of included studies, with no date restrictions but limited to English language, up to December 21, 2022. The study included all randomized clinical trials that had documented elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedure and reported at least one relevant outcome. Articles that included subdiaphragmatic drain, intraperitoneal normal saline infusion, or pulmonary recruitment maneuver were excluded from the analysis. Two reviewers independently and in duplicate assessed the eligibility of studies and extracted data. The study reported findings according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The risk of bias of the included trials was assessed using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. The study used a random-effects model to pool data.

resultsThis meta-analysis included 5 randomized clinical trials with 367 participants and found that active gas aspiration resulted in significantly lower residual gas volume and total analgesia requirements compared to passive gas aspiration. Active gas aspiration also led to significantly lower shoulder pain scores at 24 h postoperatively. However, no significant differences were observed in hospital stay duration or abdominal pain scores.

conclusionThe study found that active gas aspiration can be effective in reducing postoperative shoulder pain and analgesic requirements after laparoscopic cholecystectomy, which has important implications for patient care and healthcare costs. Importantly, this intervention does not impose any additional time or financial burden. However, further research is needed to evaluate its impact on other laparoscopic procedures.

Indexed as

Cholecystectomy, LaparoscopicAnalgesicsHumansPostoperative PainRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicShoulder PainAnalgesicsGas aspirationGas suctionLaparoscopic cholecystectomyPainResidual gas

Identifiers

PMID38212468
OpenAlexW4390755139

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.