Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40419930›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2025

Robotic-assisted versus conventional/single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Kezhong Tang, Wei Zhou, Yizhao Zhou, Yongzhou Li, Li Liao, Xin Dong

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Robotic versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Length of Stay and Readmission.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Kezhong TangDepartment of Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, PR China.
Wei ZhouDepartment of Surgery, First People's Hospital of Pinghu District, Jiaxing, PR China.
Yizhao ZhouDepartment of Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, PR China.
Yongzhou LiDepartment of Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, PR China.
Li LiaoDepartment of Pharmacy, Hangzhou Children's Hospital, Hangzhou, PR China.
Xin DongDepartment of Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, PR China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobotic surgery has shown great advantages in many complicated endoscopic operations compared with laparoscopic surgery. However robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) is still a controversial issue compared with conventional/single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC/SILC). The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of RAC with CLC/SILC for benign gallbladder disease.

methodsEmbase, Medline, Pubmed, and Cochrane library databases were searched to obtain comparative studies evaluating the safety and efficacy between RAC and CLC/SILC. Only randomized trials and non-randomized studies with propensity score matching were included. Statistical analysis was performed through Stata software, random effects models were applied.

resultsA total of 17 studies, including 12 studies for RAC versus CLC and 5 studies for RAC versus SILC, were included in the study. A total of 75,866 patients were included in the study, of whom 37,471 patients underwent RAC, 38,123 patients underwent CLC, and 272 patients underwent SILC. Compared with CLC/SILC, RAC significantly increased operative time (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.79 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30, 1.28) and hospitalization costs (SMD 1.82; 95% CI 0.27, 3.36). At the same time, RAC significantly reduced conversion rate (relative risk [RR] 0.58; 95% CI 0.52, 0.63). There were no significant differences between the groups in the length of hospital stay (SMD 0.04; 95% CI -0.02, 0.11), intraoperative complications (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.61, 1.59), estimate blood loss (SMD 0.03; 95% CI -0.19, 0.25), and incisional hernia (RR 2.51; 95% CI 0.69, 9.10).

conclusionRAC is a safe and effective procedure with lower conversion rate and comparable rate of complications compared with CLC/SILC.

Indexed as

Cholecystectomy, LaparoscopicGallbladder DiseasesRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansLength of StayOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsTreatment Outcomebenign gallbladder diseaselaparoscopic cholecystectomyrobotic-assistedsingle-incision

Identifiers

PMID40419930
PMCPMC12114010

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.