ArticleCureus2025
Short-Term Clinical Outcomes of Robotic and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Indian Patients.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Perioperative outcomes of remote robot-assisted cholecystectomy: a single-arm meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Length of Stay and Readmission.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsPooled it
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to present the short-term clinical outcomes of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RC) compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), performed by a skilled laparoscopic surgeon who is just starting the RC learning curve.
methodsA retrospective medical chart review was conducted for consecutive patients aged ≥18 who underwent non-complex cholecystectomy using either the RC or LC approach between July 2023 and August 2024.
resultsData from 96 patients (26 in the LC group and 70 cases in the RC group) were collected and analyzed. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. The mean total operating time was significantly shorter in the RC group compared with the LC group (21.73 ± 12.74 min vs. 32.94 ± 15.51 min; P = 0.0025). The mean length of hospital stay was also shorter in the RC group (P = 0.0368). In the LC group, one bile duct injury was reported. No conversions, postoperative complications, or surgical site infections (SSIs) occurred in either group. The quantity and duration of analgesic use did not differ significantly between the two groups. Pain scores at 24 hours (P < 0.05) and 48 hours (P = 0.0039) were significantly lower in the RC group. Quality of life (QoL) scores were significantly higher in the RC group at seven days (P = 0.0003) and 14 days (P = 0.0108) after surgery.
conclusionRC outperformed LC in terms of total operating time, length of stay, pain scores, and QoL scores. Furthermore, a surgeon at the beginning of the RC learning curve can achieve outcomes comparable to those of a surgeon who has already surpassed it.
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.