ArticleJAMA surgery2023
Comparative Safety of Robotic-Assisted vs Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.
Article in JAMA surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 91 papers, 11 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
91 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 135 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic cholecystectomy using da Vinci SP, single-site, and multiport systems: a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Cutting-edge choices: comparative outcomes of laparoscopic vs robotic cholecystectomy-a systematic review.Updates in surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative outcomes of da Vinci SP versus da Vinci Xi platforms in robotic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative effectiveness, safety, and cost of laparoscopic versus robotic minimally invasive cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Is robotic surgery ready for emergency cholecystectomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic approach in acute cholecystitis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic cholecystectomy approaches: a systematic review and GRADE assessment meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Current evidence and reported experiences for robot-assisted emergency general surgery: systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Single-surgeon training of 14 novice surgeons in robotic cholecystectomy: a study of 300 consecutive cases, assessing training outcomes and surgical performance.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Learning curves for adoption of robotic bariatric surgery: a systematic review of safety, efficiency and clinical outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Robotic versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Length of Stay and Readmission.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsPooled it
- Mapping the learning curve of robotic cholecystectomy: a multi‑surgeon cohort analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Comparison of outcomes between robot-assisted and laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery in patients with heart failure: a national readmission database analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- The Benign COMPARE Study: Comparing Perioperative Outcomes of Benign Minimally Invasive Laparoscopic, da Vinci Robotic, and Open Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Evidence.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2026Article
- A History of Cholecystectomy.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2026Article
- Robotic Cholecystectomy: Outcomes, Safety, and Value in the Era of Advanced Technology.Journal of surgery and research · 2026Article
- Robotics on the rise: an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter trial of robotic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute care surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Quality assessment of public education short videos on robot-assisted cholecystectomy and analysis of audience preferences.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Post-cholecystectomy Bile Duct Injury in Mexico: Prevention, Diagnosis, Management, and Healthcare System Challenges.Cureus · 2026Review
- Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery in hepatobiliary procedures: a scoping review.BMC surgery · 2026Article
31 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is rapidly being adopted into practice, partly based on the belief that it offers specific technical and safety advantages over traditional laparoscopic surgery. Whether robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is safer than laparoscopic cholecystectomy remains unclear. Objective: To determine the uptake of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy and to analyze its comparative safety vs laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used Medicare administrative claims data for nonfederal acute care hospitals from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2019. Participants included 1 026 088 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries 66 to 99 years of age who underwent cholecystectomy with continuous Medicare coverage for 3 months before and 12 months after surgery. Data were analyzed August 17, 2022, to June 1, 2023. Exposure: Surgical technique used to perform cholecystectomy: robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic approaches. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was rate of bile duct injury requiring definitive surgical reconstruction within 1 year after cholecystectomy. Secondary outcomes were composite outcome of bile duct injury requiring less-invasive postoperative surgical or endoscopic biliary interventions, and overall incidence of 30-day complications. Multivariable logistic analysis was performed adjusting for patient factors and clustered within hospital referral regions. An instrumental variable analysis was performed, leveraging regional variation in the adoption of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy within hospital referral regions over time, to account for potential confounding from unmeasured differences between treatment groups. Results: A total of 1 026 088 patients (mean [SD] age, 72 [12.0] years; 53.3% women) were included in the study. The use of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy increased 37-fold from 211 of 147 341 patients (0.1%) in 2010 to 6507 of 125 211 patients (5.2%) in 2019. Compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy, robotic-assisted cholecystectomy was associated with a higher rate of bile duct injury necessitating a definitive operative repair within 1 year (0.7% vs 0.2%; relative risk [RR], 3.16 [95% CI, 2.57-3.75]). Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy was also associated with a higher rate of postoperative biliary interventions, such as endoscopic stenting (7.4% vs 6.0%; RR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.16-1.33]). There was no significant difference in overall 30-day complication rates between the 2 procedures. The instrumental variable analysis, which was designed to account for potential unmeasured differences in treatment groups, also showed that robotic-assisted cholecystectomy was associated with a higher rate of bile duct injury (0.4% vs 0.2%; RR, 1.88 [95% CI, 1.14-2.63]). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study's finding of significantly higher rates of bile duct injury with robotic-assisted cholecystectomy compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy suggests that the utility of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy should be reconsidered, given the existence of an already minimally invasive, predictably safe laparoscopic approach.
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.