ArticleTurkish journal of surgery2025
Anticipating critical view of safety challenges in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for symptomatic cholelithiasis patients: Can we predict them earlier?
Article in Turkish journal of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Validation of the parkland grading scale in predicting the critical view of safety during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A prospective cohort study with implications for future artificial intelligence ground truth establishment.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard treatment for symptomatic cholelithiasis. Identifying the critical view of safety (CVS) is crucial in this procedure to prevent complications, but achieving CVS can be challenging, necessitating bailout procedures. This study analyzes factors influencing CVS identification and describes bailout procedures used when CVS identification fails. Material and Methods: We collected data from symptomatic cholelithiasis patients undergoing LC at Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital from January to October 2023. Factors contributing to CVS identification failure were analyzed, and bailout procedures were described. Results: Among 107 symptomatic cholelithiasis patients, the mean age was 50.38 years, with the majority being female (55.14% of whom were female). CVS was identified in 88 patients (82.24%). Univariate analysis showed that history of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) [odds ratio (OR) 5.46], Bile duct (BD) stent (OR 16.53), and diagnosis of cholecystitis (acute, OR 6.17; chronic; OR 4.00) significantly increased CVS identification failure risk. Multivariate analysis identified BD stent as the only significant risk factor (OR 7.41). Higher failure rates were associated with Parkland scores of 4-5, Nassar scores of 4, and G10 scores of 4-5. Among those with CVS identification failure, 5 completed cholecystectomy via top-down approach, 6 underwent subtotal fenestrating cholecystectomy, 6 underwent subtotal reconstituting cholecystectomy, and 2 converted to open cholecystectomy. Conclusion: Predicting CVS identification failure using preoperative parameters and intraoperative scoring systems is crucial for anticipating surgical complexity and ensuring timely intervention. History of ERCP, BD stent presence, and cholecystitis diagnosis were significant predictors of CVS identification failure. Intraoperative scoring systems reliably predicted CVS identification failure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.