ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Robotic Care Outcomes Project (ROBOCOP) for elective cholecystectomy.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. 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
- Article
- Robotic Cholecystectomy: Outcomes, Safety, and Value in the Era of Advanced Technology.Journal of surgery and research · 2026Article
- Post-cholecystectomy Bile Duct Injury in Mexico: Prevention, Diagnosis, Management, and Healthcare System Challenges.Cureus · 2026Review
- Robotic cholecystectomy during surgical training: learning curve and perioperative outcomes of 441 consecutive cases in a high-volume teaching center.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic versus pure laparoscopic approach to subtotal fenestrating cholecystectomy: does the robot improve postoperative outcomes?Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
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
backgroundRobotic cholecystectomy (RCHOLE) is being used more frequently for elective patients. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes, specifically conversion to open/subtotal cholecystectomy, for RCHOLE and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCHOLE).
methodsOur study received a Non-Human Subjects Research Determination. We studied elective laparoscopic (LCHOLE) and robotic (RCHOLE) cases from 2020 to 2022 using de-identified extraction of electronic US hospital health record data from the Intuitive Custom Hospital Analytics database. LCHOLE and RCHOLE cases, conversion to open/subtotal cholecystectomy, and complications were identified using ICD10 and/or CPT codes. Patients with missing operative times and demographics were excluded (n = 11,276). We used Multivariate Logistic Regression with Inverse Probability Treatment Weighting(MLR/IPTW) to balance covariates. R 4.1.1 was used for analysis.
resultsLCHOLE(n = 93,122) and RCHOLE(n = 23,581) had similar mean age(50 years) and gender(70% female); RCHOLE patients were more frequently obese(BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2, 38.0% vs. 33.4%, p < 0.001). Operative time was longer in RCHOLE(107 ± 53 vs. 93 ± 42 min, p < 0.001). After MLR/IPTW, RCHOLE had decreased odds of conversion to open cholecystectomy (OR 0.51 [95%CI 0.42, 0.61, p < 0.001), but similar odds of subtotal cholecystectomy. Readmission (OR 0.89 [0.81, 0.97, p = 0.008]) hospital acquired conditions (OR 0.71 [0.60, 0.83, p < 0.001]), and bile duct injury (OR 0.00, p < 0.001) were less likely with RCHOLE. Odds of surgical site infection and hospital mortality were similar in both groups.
conclusionsIn the elective setting, robotic cholecystectomy has reduced odds of conversion to open, readmission, and hospital acquired conditions including bile duct injury when compared to laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
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.