ReviewJournal of clinical and translational research2022
Robot-assisted radical cholecystectomy for gallbladder cancer: A review.
Review in Journal of clinical and translational research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality assessment of public education short videos on robot-assisted cholecystectomy and analysis of audience preferences.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- From Anatomical Staging to Precision Prognostication: Evolution of Gallbladder Cancer Staging Across AJCC Editions and the 2025 UICC TNM Update.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Robotic single-port plus one-port radical cholecystectomy: description of surgical techniques with video.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2026Article
- Reduced-port robotic extended cholecystectomy using the da Vinci Single Port system for gallbladder cancer: a case report with video.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2026Article
- Minimally invasive vs. open radical cholecystectomy for gallbladder cancer: 30-day NSQIP outcomes analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Evolution from laparoscopic to robotic radical resection for gallbladder cancer: a propensity score-matched comparative study.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Hotspots and scientometrics in gallbladder cancer surgery research: a bibliometric and visualization analysis (2014-2024).Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Robotic-assisted contra open resection for suspected or confirmed gallbladder cancer (ROBOCOP).BJS open · 2024Article
- Outcomes of Robotic Surgery in a Single-institution, High-volume Hepatobiliary Oncology Unit.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Robotic Hepatic Bisegmentectomy (s4b + s5) and Hilar Lymphadenectomy for Incidental Gallbladder Cancer Using Glissonian Approach.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- ASO Author Reflections: Robotic Radical Surgery for Incidental Gallbladder Cancer is on the Rise.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Radical cholecystectomy (RC) is recommended for Gallbladder cancer (GbC) patients with resectable T1b or higher stage. Traditionally, open RC is preferred over minimally invasive approach. Robotic surgery is increasingly gaining popularity and there are reports of robotic RC (RRC) for GbC. RRC is still new and mostly performed in high-volume centers with access to robotic technology. Aim: This study aims to review the current literature on the safety and feasibility of RRC for GbC. Methods: We performed a systematic review of RRC for GbC using PubMed and Embase until December 2020. The primary endpoint was major complications, while the secondary endpoints were conversion to open, R0 resection, and early recurrence. Results: Seven studies with 74 patients were included in the study. Overall, four patients (5.41%) required open conversion. Five out of 74 patients (6.76%) experienced post-operative complications. There was no post-operative mortality. Among the patients with surgical margins reported (n = 63), 61 patients had negative margins (96.8%) and only two patients had positive margins. Two-year survival outcomes were reported as 60.5-100%. Relevance for Patients: This is the first review that summarizes the current evidence on RRC for GbC. The endpoints suggest that RRC is feasible and safe in selected patients and when done in experienced centers. Understanding the strengths and limitations of RRC compared to other established therapeutic options may potentially aid surgeons in formulating the optimal treatment plan for GbC patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35392126PMC8983392What 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.