Methods of cystic duct occlusion during laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Ir a:

Figure 1

Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Figure 2

Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Occlusion of cystic duct using absorbable versus non‐absorbable materials, Outcome 1 Re‐operation.

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Occlusion of cystic duct using absorbable versus non‐absorbable materials, Outcome 2 Operating time.

Comparison 1. Occlusion of cystic duct using absorbable versus non‐absorbable materials

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Re‐operation Show forest plot	2	205	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.94 [0.12, 70.67]

1.1 Absorbable clip versus non‐absorbable clips	1	100	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.2 Absorbable ligature versus non‐absorbable clips	1	105	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.94 [0.12, 70.67]
2 Operating time Show forest plot	2		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

2.1 Absorbable clip versus non‐absorbable clips	1	100	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	4.0 [‐3.49, 11.49]
2.2 Absorbable ligature versus non‐absorbable clips	1	105	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	12.0 [1.59, 22.41]

Comparison 1. Occlusion of cystic duct using absorbable versus non‐absorbable materials