ArticleTranslational gastroenterology and hepatology2024
Laparoscopic versus robotic cholecystectomy: a systematic review with meta-analysis to differentiate between postoperative outcomes and cost-effectiveness.
Article in Translational gastroenterology and hepatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Clinical outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic cholecystectomy approaches: a systematic review and GRADE assessment meta-analysis.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
- Single-port robotic versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with BMI ≥ 25 kg/mJournal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Cholecystoduodenal Fistula, Gallstone Ileus, and Choledocholithiasis: A Case Report and Literature Review.Clinical case reports · 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
- 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
- Charting Progress: Clinical Outcomes and the Learning Curve of Robotic Cholecystectomy in Indian Surgical Practice.Cureus · 2025Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Day Surgery With Remote Patient Monitoring for Acute Cholecystitis: Economic Modeling Study.JMIR perioperative medicine · 2025Article
- Review
- Short-Term Clinical Outcomes of Robotic and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Indian Patients.Cureus · 2025Article
- Article
- Review
- Article
- A Comparative Study of Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Cholecystectomies Based on the Parkland Grading Scale.Cureus · 2024Article
- Perioperative and Patient-Reported Clinical Outcomes of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Robotic cholecystectomy (RC) has shown promising outcomes in multiple studies when compared with the gold standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The objective of this study is to compare the postoperative surgical outcomes and cost in patients undergoing RC versus LC. Methods: Studies reporting postoperative outcomes and costs in patients undergoing RC versus LC were selected from medical electronic databases and analysis was conducted by the values of systematic review on the statistical software RevMan version 5. Results: Six trials on 1,013 affected individuals for post-operative outcomes and cost comparison were used. Random effect model analysis was used in the analysis. Duration of operation (mean difference: -10.23, 95% CI: -16.23 to -4.22, Z=3.34, P=0.0008) was shorter in the LC group with moderate heterogeneity. Bile leak (odds ratio: 3.34, 95% CI: 0.85 to 13.03, Z=1.73, P=0.08) and no heterogeneity was seen, Postoperative complications (odds ratio: 1.49, 95% CI: 0.50 to 4.46, Z=0.72, P=0.47) with moderate heterogeneity. Both were statistically similar. LC had reduced cost (standardised mean difference: -7.42, 95% CI: -13.10 to -1.74, Z=2.56, P=0.01) with significant heterogeneity. Conclusions: RC failed to prove any clinical advantage over LC for postoperative outcomes including longer duration of operation moreover LC was more cost effective. Due to the paucity of randomised control trial (RCT) and significant heterogeneity, a major multicentre RCT is required to strengthen and validate the findings.
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.