ArticleCureus2024
A Retrospective Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes of Robotic and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: An Indian Tertiary Care Comparative Experience.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robotic Cholecystectomy: Outcomes, Safety, and Value in the Era of Advanced Technology.Journal of surgery and research · 2026Article
- Robotic-assistedAnnals of surgical treatment and research · 2026Article
- Article
- Charting Progress: Clinical Outcomes and the Learning Curve of Robotic Cholecystectomy in Indian Surgical Practice.Cureus · 2025Article
- Short-Term Clinical Outcomes of Robotic and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Indian Patients.Cureus · 2025Article
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 There has been a gradual adoption of general surgery robotic programs in India. However, we still do not have a single comparative study reporting the initial experience of robotic cholecystectomy (RC) compared to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). This retrospective study is aimed at addressing this clinical data gap. Methods This is a retrospective medical chart review where data related to patient demographics, and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were collected. All patients underwent either RC or LC for gallstone disease, performed by a single surgeon from January 2020 to September 2023. The surgeon had passed the learning curve for RC and this data collection reflects his post-learning curve experience. Results A total of 100 cases (RC: 50; LC: 50) were collected. Baseline parameters such as age, sex, BMI, and comorbidities were comparable. There were no conversions from the planned procedure in either of the groups (0% vs 0%). There were no intraoperative complications such as bleeding or common bile duct injury (0% vs 0%). The rates of surgical site infections (SSIs) were numerically lower in the robotic group, 2% vs 6% (p = 0.3099). There were no postoperative complications in the robotic group, whereas one patient in the laparoscopic group experienced port side bleeding (0% vs 2%, p = 0.3173). The mean length of hospital stay was one day in both groups. The mean pain score 24- hours after the surgery was 1.78 ± 0.68 in the robotic group and 3.3 ± 1.2 in the laparoscopic group (p = <0.001). None of the patients required opioid analgesics in the robotic group, whereas 20% of patients in the laparoscopic group needed at least one dose of opioid analgesics (p = 0.0009). There were no reoperations reported in the robotic group, whereas the laparoscopic group reported 1 case. The 30-day mortality was nil in both groups. Conclusion RC is feasible in Indian settings. Compared to LC, it does not increase morbidity. The improvement in acute postoperative pain can potentially allow early ambulation and recovery. A larger multicentric study, comparing RC to LC in India will validate our initial experience.
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.