Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2016
Short-term outcomes of single-site robotic cholecystectomy versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
38 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of single-incision and traditional laparoscopic surgery for the risk of incisional hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Updates in surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery in the emergency setting: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Laparoscopic versus robotic abdominal and pelvic surgery: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for single-incision cholecystectomy: an updated systematic review.Updates in surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of robot-assisted cholecystectomy: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Robotic Single-Port Platform in General, Urologic, and Gynecologic Surgeries: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-analysis.World journal of surgery · 2019Pooled it
- European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Guideline
- Safety of single-incision robotic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease: a systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Pooled it
- Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Comparison of a new gasless method and the conventional COUpdates in surgery · 2021Trial
- Cosmesis, patient satisfaction, and quality of life after da Vinci Single-Site cholecystectomy and multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: short-term results from a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2017Trial
- Trial
- Robotic Cholecystectomy: Outcomes, Safety, and Value in the Era of Advanced Technology.Journal of surgery and research · 2026Article
- Safety and feasibility of robotic single-port (SP) cholecystectomy compared to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a propensity score matching analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRandomized 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.
methodsTwo 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.
resultsNo 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.
conclusionsSIRC 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 ).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.