ArticleJSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
Comparative Analysis of Laparoscopic and Robotic Cholecystectomy: A Multihospital Retrospective Study.
Article in JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robotic versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Length of Stay and Readmission.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsPooled it
- Robotic Cholecystectomy: Outcomes, Safety, and Value in the Era of Advanced Technology.Journal of surgery and research · 2026Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery in hepatobiliary procedures: a scoping review.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- White paper: robotic cholecystectomy-new technology but safe principles still apply.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy with DEXTERSurgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has remained the gold standard approach for gallbladder surgery for nearly 3 decades. However, adoption of robotics for treatment of gallbladder disease continues to grow. Despite this growth, clinical outcomes regarding laparoscopic versus robotic cholecystectomy remain unclear. Methods: We conducted a multihospital retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent cholecystectomy between August 1, 2021 and November 30, 2023. We compared demographic and clinical characteristics, surgical details, and postoperative outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic groups. The postoperative outcomes analyzed included conversion to open, bile leak, major duct injury, return to the operating room, surgical site infection, blood transfusion, readmission, and death. The overall complication rate included any of these outcomes. Statistical analysis included χ Results: A total of 4,316 patients were analyzed (3,736 laparoscopic, 580 robotic). In bivariate analyses, robotic surgery was associated with lower rates of conversion to open ( Conclusion: Robotic cholecystectomy demonstrates favorable clinical outcomes compared to laparoscopic cholecystectomy. These findings support the advantages of robotic assistance during cholecystectomy. To our knowledge, this represents one of the largest retrospective studies showing a clinical benefit from the robotic approach.
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.