SynthesisMedicine2018
Single-incision robotic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single-port robotic versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with BMI ≥ 25 kg/mJournal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Feasibility of robotic cholecystectomy at an academic center with a young robotic surgery program: a retrospective cohort study with umbrella review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of robot-assisted cholecystectomy: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Single-incision robotic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: initial experience with the EDGE SP1000 robotic system at a Shanghai center.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Robotic Gastrointestinal Surgery Compared to Conventional Approaches: An Umbrella Review of Clinical and Economic Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Systematic Review of Utilized Ports in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Pushing the Boundaries.Minimally invasive surgery · 2024Review
- Article
- Single-site robotic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2023Review
- Comparison of outcomes of single incision robotic cholecystectomy and single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2021Article
- A Comparative Study of Needlescopic Grasper Assisted Single Incision versus Three-Port versus Pure Single Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2019Article
- Single-incision versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in an ambulatory surgery setting: A prospective randomised double-blind controlled trial.Journal of minimal access surgeryArticle
- Propensity Score Matched Comparison of Robotic Single-Site and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
- Robotic surgery enables safe and comfortable single-incision cholecystectomy: A comparison of robotic and laparoscopic approaches for single-incision surgery.Journal of minimal access surgeryArticle
- Early Outcomes of Robotic Single Site Cholecystectomy Using the DaVinci Xi® System.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSingle-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is the result of the ongoing trend to minimally invasive of laparoscopy, but some surgeons thought that the SILC can increase the risk of bile duct injure or bile spillage, and the single-incision robotic cholecystectomy (SIRC) can overcome the drawbacks of SILC. Some articles described that the SIRC had longer operative time and more cost than SILC. The advantages and disadvantages of SIRC have still not been extensively studied. We aimed to investigate the outcomes of SIRC compared to SILC and evaluate the safety and feasibility of SIRC.
methodsTo find relevant studies, the electronic databases PubMed, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched to seek information in English literature from 2011 to 2017. Studies comparing SIRC to SILC, for any indication, were included in the analysis. This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed with RevMan Version 5.3.
resultsSix comparative studies (n = 633 patients) were included in our analysis. The data showed that the SIRC and SILC had equivalent outcomes for operative time [mean difference (MD) = 17.32, 95% confidence interval (CI): -8.93-43.57, P = .20], intraoperative complications [odd ratio (OR) = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.17-1.39, P = .18], postoperative complications (OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.21-1.86, P = .39), hospital stay (MD = -0.01, 95% CI: -0.21-0.19, P = .90), readmissions rate (OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.09-5.63, P = .74), and conversion rate (OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.14-1.96, P = .33), but total cost was statistically significant (MD = 3.7, 95% CI: 3.61-3.79, P < .00001).
conclusionSIRC is a safe and feasible procedure for cholecystectomy, and the operative time is same as SILC, but the total cost of SIRC is significantly higher than SILC.
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.