ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
A single-center experience of over 600 cases of robotic cholecystectomy: a propensity score match analysis.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative outcomes of da Vinci SP versus da Vinci Xi platforms in robotic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Navigating decision-making for high-cost robotic surgery in the emergency department: an acute care surgery experience.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robot-assisted cholecystectomies take less time to perform than laparoscopy in the urgent setting: a single-centered study evaluating elective and urgent cases.Journal of robotic surgery · 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
backgroundMinimally invasive surgery is the gold standard for cholecystectomy and robotic-assisted cholecystectomy has been shown to be comparable if not better than the laparoscopic technique, in terms of postoperative outcomes. We aim to compare outcomes of different robotic approaches for cholecystectomy in a high-volume Center with a large experience in robotic surgery in using robotic multiport (MP), robotic single-site (SS) and robotic single-port approach (SP).
methodsData from 611 patients who underwent elective robotic cholecystectomy with MP, SS or SP technique were retrospectively collected between 2012 and 2024. All surgeries were performed by the same surgeon. Urgent cholecystectomies were excluded. A propensity score weighted analysis were used to balance the three groups and short-term outcomes were compared.
resultsAfter the weighting using general characteristics (age, gender, BMI, ASA scale, comorbidity, and previous abdominal surgery), three groups of patients were obtained: MP n = 128; SP n = 116; SS n = 118. The three groups were homogenous for the above-mentioned characteristics. Based on linear regression analysis, the SP group had shorter overall operative time (OT), length of stay (LOS) and lower estimated blood loss (EBL), although the latter in a non-clinically significant manner (5 mL). No differences between groups in 30-day Clavien-Dindo complications, conversion rate, 30-day reinterventions, 30-day readmission and 30-day mortality (p > 0.05).
conclusionThe analysis between robotic cholecystectomy methods showed that the SP technique results in lower LOS and EBL than the multiport technique. Regarding the duration of surgery, the SP technique was faster than the other two methods compared. SP robotic cholecystectomy is a safe and feasible alternative to multiport and single-site robotic surgery with promising results.
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.