Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32399373›Full record

ArticleCureus2020

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Case-Control Outcome Analysis and Surgical Resident Training Implications.

Maher Ghanem, Samuel Shaheen, John Blebea, Faiz Tuma, Majd Zayout, Nico Conti, Ghaith Qudah, Mohamed K Kamel

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Robotic versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Length of Stay and Readmission.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Maher GhanemGeneral Surgery, Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Saginaw, USA.
Samuel ShaheenGeneral Surgery, Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Saginaw, USA.
John BlebeaGeneral Surgery, Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Saginaw, USA.
Faiz TumaGeneral Surgery, Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Saginaw, USA.
Majd ZayoutSurgery, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, IRL.
Nico ContiInternal Medicine, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, USA.
Ghaith QudahGeneral Surgery, Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Saginaw, USA.
Mohamed K KamelGeneral Surgery, Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Saginaw, USA.
Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland · IEUniversity Hospitals of Cleveland · USCentral Michigan University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background The robotic approach in surgery is becoming more widely used in many subspecialties. Robot-assisted laparoscopic procedures provide potential improvements in clinical outcomes due to improved visualization and enhanced surgical ergonomics. In this study, we measured and compared outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy with the conventional laparoscopic technique, as well as the implications for the training of surgical residents. Method We compared a total of 244 patients undergoing minimally invasive cholecystectomies performed by one surgeon between July 2013 and June 2016 examining relevant clinical outcomes including operative room (OR) time, length of hospital stay (LOS), readmission to the hospital, post-operative emergency department (ED) visits, and post-operative pain between laparoscopic single-incision cholecystectomy and robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A chi-square test and Student's t-test were used to compare these variables between the two groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used using gender, age, and body mass index (BMI) as variables. Results From the total number of procedures of 244, 144 were included in the laparoscopic group and 100 in the robot-assisted group. The robot-assisted patients had a shorter post-operative LOS (mean: 0.8 vs. 1.6 days; p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in the OR time (mean: 64.8 vs. 65.0 minutes; p = 0.945), readmissions (4.0% vs. 3.5%; p = 0.830), post-operative ED visits (7.0% vs. 7.6%; p = 0.851), or post-operative pain (13.0% vs. 21.3%; p= 0.137). Robotic cholecystectomy patients were younger (mean: 46 vs. 52 years; p = 0.023) and had lower BMIs (mean: 31 vs. 33; p = 0.038). Because of these differences, we compared the two groups using PSM that confirmed the shorter LOS in the robotic group (mean: 0.9 vs. 1.9; p = 0.009). Conclusions These results demonstrate that robotic cholecystectomies can reduce LOS for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy, without increasing OR time. Increased surgeon experience with robotic procedures and improved OR efficiency will allow greater opportunities for resident participation. Robotic training curricula need to be employed and objectively evaluated to improve surgical resident skill acquisition and provide earlier and progressive clinical participation in robotic procedures.

Indexed as

cholecystectomyclinical outcomeslaparoscopicroboticsurgical training

Identifiers

PMID32399373
PMCPMC7216311
OpenAlexW3015241871

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.