ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Experience with robotic common bile duct exploration for common bile duct stones in comparison to a conventional laparoscopic approach.
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 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCommon bile duct (CBD) stones are present in up to 20% of patients with gallstones and are associated with complications such as obstructive jaundice, cholangitis, and pancreatitis. Current guidelines support both endoscopic and surgical CBD stone extraction. While laparoscopic common bile duct exploration is an established technique, evidence on robotic CBD exploration remains limited.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted, including all adult patients who underwent CBD exploration between January 2020 and December 2024. Demographic, operative, and outcome data were collected and compared between patients undergoing laparoscopic versus robot-assisted CBD exploration.
resultsA total of 313 CBD explorations were performed: 274 laparoscopic and 39 robotic. Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Most procedures were performed acutely (laparoscopic 83.2% vs robotic 56.4%, p = 0.002). Mean operative duration was 134 minutes in both groups. Conversion to open surgery occurred in three laparoscopic cases; no robotic cases required conversion. Intra-operative ultrasound was used more frequently in robotic cases (76.9% vs 18.5%, p < 0.001) whilst intra-operative cholangiography was more common in laparoscopic procedures. Median hospital stay was 2 days in both groups. Overall complication rates were similar (laparoscopic 14.2% vs robotic 15.4%, p = 0.916). No statistical differences were noted in Clavien-Dindo complication grades between groups. DISCUSSION: This single-centre analysis demonstrates that robot-assisted CBD exploration is safe and yields comparable intra-operative and postoperative outcomes to laparoscopic exploration. Despite a potential learning curve, varying robotic availability in emergency settings, and overall lower rate of robotic procedures compared to conventional laparoscopy, the study supports robotic CBDE as a viable and non-inferior approach to laparoscopic CBDE. Further prospective multicentre studies and economic evaluations are warranted to define best practices and establish a robotic pathway for CBD exploration, particularly in the emergency setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42257928What 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.