Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39627934›Full record

ReviewAnnals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery2025

Robotic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Can they be compared? A narrative review and personal considerations disproving low-level evidence.

Giovanni D Tebala, Paolo Pietro Bianchi, Giles Bond-Smith, Andrea Coratti, Fabrizio Panaro, Graziano Pernazza, Davide Cavaliere

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Giovanni D TebalaDepartment of Digestive and Emergency Surgery, Azienda Ospedaliera Santa Maria, Terni, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7152-4096
Paolo Pietro BianchiDepartment of General Surgery, Ospedale San Paolo, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0060-0586
Giles Bond-SmithSurgical Emergency Unit, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7385-7521
Andrea CorattiDepartment of General Surgery, Ospedale "Misericordia", Grosseto, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2334-1284
Fabrizio PanaroDepartment of General Surgery, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria, Alessandria, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8200-4969
Graziano PernazzaDepartment of General Robotic Surgery, Ospedale San Carlo di Nancy, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1328-4482
Davide CavaliereDepartment of General Surgery, Ospedale degli Infermi, Faenza, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-5501-2370

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard for the treatment of symptomatic gallstones, acute cholecystitis, and acute gallstone pancreatitis. In recent years, the development and diffusion of robotic surgery have provided surgeons with the opportunity to apply this innovative approach to cholecystectomy, yielding interesting results. However, as with any new surgical technique, robotic cholecystectomy (RC) has met with skepticism within the surgical community. Beyond the understandable concerns regarding increased costs, some authors have claimed that RC is associated with a higher complication rate compared to LC. We reviewed the existing literature on this subject, discussing the limitations and strengths of the most significant publications and critically analyzing them. The analysis of the literature indicates that RC is safe and effective, with no definitive evidence of its inferiority compared to LC. Some of the published papers are of low quality and biased, even with significant sample sizes. Furthermore, we believe that comparing an established technique like LC with a new and not yet standardized one such as RC is somewhat illogical. RC represents a significant advance in minimally invasive surgery and should be viewed as an opportunity to familiarize oneself with the robotic device and to enhance the surgeon's skills in preparation for more complex robotic operations. The robotic approach can be beneficial in selected cases of cholecystectomy where fine dissection is required. With further reductions in costs, RC could become the future gold standard for benign gallbladder disorders.

Indexed as

CholecystectomyLaparoscopic cholecystectomyRobotics

Identifiers

PMID39627934
PMCPMC11830893

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.