ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Safety of robotic cholecystectomy as index training procedure: the UK experience.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robotic Cholecystectomy: Outcomes, Safety, and Value in the Era of Advanced Technology.Journal of surgery and research · 2026Article
- Live, proctored robotic training for the novice robotic surgeon: outcomes and educational value of the Portsmouth Robotic Essentials Course.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Short-Term Clinical Outcomes of Robotic and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Indian Patients.Cureus · 2025Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Can they be compared? A narrative review and personal considerations disproving low-level evidence.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
40 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo evaluate the safety profile of robotic cholecystectomy performed within the United Kingdom (UK) Robotic Hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) training programme.
methodsA retrospective evaluation of prospectively collected data from eleven centres participating in the UK Robotic HPB training programme was conducted. All adult patients undergoing robotic cholecystectomy for symptomatic gallstone disease or gallbladder polyp were considered. Bile duct injury, conversion to open procedure, conversion to subtotal cholecystectomy, length of hospital stay, 30-day re-admission, and post-operative complications were the evaluated outcome parameters.
resultsA total of 600 patients were included. The median age was 53 (IQR 65-41) years and the majority (72.7%; 436/600) were female. The main indications for robotic cholecystectomy were biliary colic (55.5%, 333/600), cholecystitis (18.8%, 113/600), gallbladder polyps (7.7%, 46/600), and pancreatitis (6.2%, 37/600). The median length of stay was 0 (IQR 0-1) days. Of the included patients, 88.5% (531/600) were discharged on the day of procedure with 30-day re-admission rate of 5.5% (33/600). There were no bile duct injuries and the rate of conversion to open was 0.8% (5/600) with subtotal cholecystectomy rate of 0.8% (5/600).
conclusionThe current study confirms that robotic cholecystectomy can be safely implemented to routine practice with a low risk of bile duct injury, low bile leak rate, low conversion to open surgery, and low need for subtotal cholecystectomy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38955837What 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.