ArticleCanadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie2019
Clinical outcomes of single-incision robotic cholecystectomy versus conventional 3-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy
Article in Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Clinical outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic cholecystectomy approaches: a systematic review and GRADE assessment meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled 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 Cholecystectomy: Outcomes, Safety, and Value in the Era of Advanced Technology.Journal of surgery and research · 2026Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery in hepatobiliary procedures: a scoping review.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- The role of robotic surgery in neurological cases: A systematic review on brain and spine applications.Heliyon · 2023Review
- Implementation of robotic surgery in Dubai: a focus on outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
- Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Breast Surgery: Recent Evidence with Comparative Clinical Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Laparoscopic cholecystectomy with two incisions: an improved, feasible and safe technique with superior cosmetic outcomes.The Journal of international medical research · 2020Article
- Trends in the Adoption of Robotic Surgery for Common Surgical Procedures.JAMA network open · 2020Article
- Early Outcomes of Robotic Single Site Cholecystectomy Using the DaVinci Xi® System.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
- Propensity Score Matched Comparison of Robotic Single-Site and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Few studies have compared the surgical results of single-incision robotic cholecystectomy (SIRC) with those of conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relative clinical efficacy of SIRC by comparing the number of postoperative days, pain level and complications between the 2 surgical methods. Methods: We retrospectively collected demographic, perioperative and postoperative data for all patients who underwent SIRC or CLC performed by a single surgeon from June 2016 to May 2017. Operative time was recorded, divided into anesthesia time, docking time, console time and total operation time. Postoperative pain was measured with the Numerical Pain Rating Scale. Results: A total of 121 patients underwent cholecystectomy during the study period, of whom 61 had SIRC and 60 had CLC. The mean total operation time of SIRC and CLC was 93.52 (SD 20.27) minutes and 37.67 (SD 19.73) minutes, respectively (p < 0.001). The total operation time excluding console time of SIRC was significantly longer than that of CLC (82.77 [SD 18.27] min v. 37.67 [SD 19.73] min) (p < 0.001). The mean Numerical Pain Rating Scale score was 4.73 (SD 1.23) (SIRC: 4.75 [SD 1.24]; CLC: 4.70 [SD 1.22]) (p = 0.8) within 1 hour after the operation; scores after 6 hours and 1 day decreased in a similar manner in the 2 groups (p = 0.1). Conclusion: Postoperative pain, use of an additional port, complication rates, operation time and cost of SIRC were similar to or greater than those of CLC. Large randomized controlled trials are needed to examine the true benefits of SIRC.
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.