Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33892794›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2021

Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of robot-assisted cholecystectomy: a systematic review.

Rivfka Shenoy, Michael A Mederos, Linda Ye, Selene S Mak, Meron M Begashaw, Marika S Booth, Paul G Shekelle, Mark Wilson, William Gunnar, Melinda Maggard-Gibbons and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Rivfka ShenoyDepartment of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA. rivfkashenoy@mednet.ucla.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-0789-7944
Michael A MederosDepartment of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Linda YeDepartment of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Selene S MakVeterans Health Administration, Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Meron M BegashawVeterans Health Administration, Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Marika S BoothRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
Paul G ShekelleVeterans Health Administration, Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Mark WilsonU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington D.C., USA.
William GunnarNational Center for Patient Safety, Veterans Health Administration, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Melinda Maggard-GibbonsDepartment of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Mark D GirgisDepartment of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
University of California, Los Angeles · USRAND Corporation · USVA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System · USUnited States Department of Veterans Affairs · USUniversity of Michigan · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRapid adoption of robotic-assisted general surgery procedures, particularly for cholecystectomy, continues while questions remain about its benefits and utility. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of robot-assisted cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease as compared with the laparoscopic approach.

methodsA literature search was performed from January 2010 to March 2020, and a narrative analysis was performed as studies were heterogeneous.

resultsOf 887 articles screened, 44 met the inclusion criteria (range 20-735,537 patients). Four were randomized controlled trials, and four used propensity-matching. There were variable comparisons between operative techniques with only 19 out of 44 studies comparing techniques using the same number of ports. Operating room time was longer for the robot-assisted technique in the majority of studies (range 11-55 min for 22 studies, p < 0.05; 15 studies showed no difference; two studies showed shorter laparoscopic times), while conversion rates and intraoperative complications were not different. No differences were detected for the length of stay, surgical site infection, or readmissions. Across studies comparing single-port robot-assisted to multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy, there was a higher rate of incisional hernia; however, no differences were noted when comparing single-port robot-assisted to single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

conclusionsClinical outcomes were similar for benign, elective gallbladder disease for robot-assisted compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Overall, the rates of complications were low. More high-quality studies are needed as the robot-assisted technique expands to more complex gallbladder disease, where its utility may prove increasingly beneficial. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020156945.

Indexed as

Cholecystectomy, LaparoscopicGallbladder DiseasesLaparoscopyRoboticsCholecystectomyHumansLength of StayCholecystectomyGallbladderLaparoscopicReviewRobot-assisted

Identifiers

PMID33892794
PMCPMC8067374
OpenAlexW3152642440

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.