ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Robotic versus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: outcomes from a high-volume specialist pancreaticobiliary unit within a structured minimally invasive pathway.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundLaparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is an established single-stage treatment for choledocholithiasis. Robotic CBDE (RCBDE) has been proposed to overcome technical limitations of laparoscopy, particularly in complex cases, but comparative data remain limited. This study evaluates outcomes of LCBDE versus RCBDE within a high-volume specialist pancreaticobiliary unit.
methodsA retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing common bile duct exploration (CBDE) between January 2011 and March 2026 was performed. Patients were stratified into LCBDE and RCBDE groups. The primary outcome was complete bile duct clearance. Secondary outcomes included operative time, conversion, length of stay, morbidity (Clavien-Dindo), bile leak, retained stones, readmission, and reintervention. To address treatment selection bias, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied.
resultsA total of 547 patients underwent CBDE (498 LCBDE; 49 RCBDE). Duct clearance was achieved in 496 (99%) laparoscopic and 49 (100%) robotic cases (p = 0.432). Retained stones occurred in 13 (3%) and 1 (2%) patients, respectively (p = 1.000). Median operative time was longer for RCBDE (156 vs 140 min, p = 0.015). Major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III) was comparable (5% vs 10%, p = 0.108), with no differences in bile leak, readmission, reintervention, or length of stay. There were no deaths. IPTW-adjusted analysis demonstrated no differences in primary or secondary outcomes, aside from longer operative duration with RCBDE. Findings were consistent in a contemporary subgroup (2022-2026).
conclusionRCBDE is safe and achieves outcomes comparable to laparoscopic exploration within a high-volume specialist unit. Although associated with longer operative duration, robotic platforms may provide technical advantages in selected technically demanding scenarios. Further studies incorporating standardised complexity grading are required to better define the role of RCBDE in advanced biliary disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42463529What 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.