Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37728932›Full record

ArticleJAMA surgery2023

Comparative Safety of Robotic-Assisted vs Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.

Stanley Kalata, Jyothi R Thumma, Edward C Norton, Justin B Dimick, Kyle H Sheetz

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
91citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
34.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

91 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 135 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Robotic versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Length of Stay and Readmission.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Pooled it
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. A History of Cholecystectomy.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

31 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Stanley KalataDepartment of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Jyothi R ThummaCenter for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Edward C NortonDepartment of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Justin B DimickDepartment of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Kyle H SheetzDepartment of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco.
University of Michigan · USOffice of Multidisciplinary Activities · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

Rapid Adoption of Robotic Surgery: Risks, Benefits, and Unintended ConsequencesR01DK131584 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Kyle Hershey Sheetz · 2022 to 2026
$2.6M
NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK131584
6 · The paper itself

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

Cholecystectomy, LaparoscopicRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedBile DuctsCohort StudiesFemaleHumansInfantMaleMedicareRetrospective StudiesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID37728932
PMCPMC10512167
OpenAlexW4386887204

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.