ReviewCureus2025
Robotic-Assisted Common Bile Duct Exploration for Choledocholithiasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Efficacy and Safety Outcomes.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Robotic Cholecystectomy and Common Bile Duct Exploration: Multidisciplinary Approach in a Complex Case of Choledocholithiasis.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic-assisted common bile duct exploration (RACBDE) shows promise as a minimally invasive option, offering better outcomes over traditional approaches. This study reviews current evidence on RACBDE outcomes and, where possible, compares it to other surgical procedures. A comprehensive search was conducted across Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Scopus. We reviewed 346 studies published in the last 15 years, of which eight met the inclusion criteria. Eligible studies reported safety outcomes and efficacy of RACBDE for choledocholithiasis. Studies comparing RACBDE to other modalities (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), laparoscopy, and open surgery) were included for comparative meta-analysis. A total of 438 patients were included. Using a random effects model, single-arm analysis of eight datasets revealed an overall pooled stone clearance rate of 95% (95% CI: 0.90, 0.98; I² = 9.16%), while the overall pooled complication rate was 25% (95% CI: 0.17, 0.33; I² = 43.45%). Comparative analysis of three datasets revealed that RACBDE had a 34% lower risk of complications compared to open surgery (log risk ratio (RR): -0.42; 95% CI: -0.78 to -0.06; p < 0.05). However, open surgery had a 37-minute shorter operation time (mean difference (MD): 37.71 minutes; 95% CI: 15.28-60.13; p < 0.05). Meta-regression with the year as a covariate showed a 0.7% reduction in the complication rate per year with RABCDE; however, this was not statistically significant (coefficient: -0.00679; p = 0.37). This study suggests that RACBDE is highly effective for stone clearance with an acceptable complication rate. Compared to open surgery, RACBDE is linked to a significantly lower complication rate but longer operative times.
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.