Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42377520›Full record

ReviewSurgical endoscopy2026

White paper: robotic cholecystectomy-new technology but safe principles still apply.

Eleah Porter, Irving Jorge, Cris Mk Malino, Ankit Sarin, Patrick J Sweigert, Dale Butler, Dnyanesh Madhukar Belekar, Maggie Bosley, Domenech Asbun, Francesco M Bianco and 9 more

Abstract readConsensus StatementReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Eleah PorterGrand Strand Medical Center, Myrtle Beach, SC, USA. eleahportermd@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1852-0728
Irving JorgeMayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Cris Mk MalinoSAMGI-Montefiore St. Luke's Hospital, Newburgh, NY, USA.
Ankit SarinUniversity of California - Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Patrick J SweigertThe Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Dale ButlerUT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Dnyanesh Madhukar BelekarPost Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (PGIMS), Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC), Navi Mumbai, India.
Maggie BosleyOregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Domenech AsbunMiami Cancer Institute, Miami, FL, USA.
Francesco M BiancoUniversity of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Jessica LindemannWashington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Edward L JonesRocky Mountain Regional VAMC, The University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA.
Jennifer M MoffettUniversity of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA.
Dana TelemUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Matthew B BloomCedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
L Michael BruntWashington University School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Kevin El-HayekThe MetroHealth System/Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Shanley B DealVirginia Mason Franciscan Health, Seattle, WA, USA.
B Fernando SantosWhite River Junction VA, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncreasing adoption of robotic cholecystectomy (RC) has prompted debate over its cost, access, safety, and training. Given the historical lessons learned during the transition from open to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), it is important that we now evaluate RC within the framework of safe cholecystectomy principles.

methodsThis white paper reviews existing literature and expert consensus on RC credentialing practices, safety protocols, adjunctive imaging, technological limitations, global applications, and modality advantages and disadvantages.

resultsEvidence on RC vs. LC outcomes is mixed, and current data suggest the need for RC structured training, simulation, and competency-based evaluation. RC offers several advantages such as enhanced visualization, improved ergonomics, and potential benefits in complex anatomy, surgeon longevity, and rural or resource-limited settings. However, challenges remain in RC, including inconsistent credentialing, limited standardization of training, potential higher costs as compared to LC, and variable adherence to safe cholecystectomy principles such as the critical view of safety (CVS).

conclusionSafe cholecystectomy principles must remain paramount in all forms of cholecystectomy. For RC adoption, there is opportunity to standardize training and incorporate thoughtful credentialing with responsible integration of technology.

Indexed as

CholecystectomyCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicRobotic Surgical ProceduresClinical CompetenceCredentialingHumansPatient SafetyBile duct injury preventionCritical view of safety (CVS)Intraoperative biliary imagingRobotic cholecystectomySurgical credentialing and training

Identifiers

PMID42377520

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.