ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
The final cut: a multi-centre cohort study evaluating outcomes of robotic completion cholecystectomy.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. 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.
- Robotic Cholecystectomy: Outcomes, Safety, and Value in the Era of Advanced Technology.Journal of surgery and research · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSubtotal and abandoned cholecystectomies are on the rise due to the increase of laparoscopic cholecystectomies performed in the emergency setting. Persistent biliary symptoms postoperatively may necessitate a completion cholecystectomy (CC) which is a technically challenging procedure. The literature describing outcomes of minimally invasive CC is scarce and consisting of small studies only. This retrospective multi-centre study aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of the robotic approach to CC.
methodsAll consecutive patients (> 18 years), undergoing a robotic CC between August 2020 and March 2025, were included. Primary outcome was success of robotic procedure. Secondary outcomes were open conversion, subtotal and abandoned cholecystectomy rate, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, 30-day re-admission and 90-day mortality. A P value < 0.05 was considered significant. Data were analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 29.0.1.0 (171).
resultsA total of 44 adult patients with a median age was 58.5 years (IQR: 43.5 - 73.3) undergoing robotic CC were included. Previous subtotal cholecystectomy was performed in 72.7% (32/44) of referrals, whereas abandoned cholecystectomy was recorded in 27.3% (12/44). There were no abandoned robotic CCs. Subtotal cholecystectomy was required in two cases (4.5%, 2/44), and conversion to open procedure was reported in one case 2.3% (1/44). A successful robotic CC was documented in 93.2% (41/44) of procedures. Overall morbidity rate was 6.8% (3/44) with a Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 in 2.3% (1/44) of cases. All complications were observed in the previous subtotal cholecystectomy group (9.4%, 3/32) vs the abandoned cholecystectomy group (0%, 0/12), however, this difference was not significant (P = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.065, 0.25]).
conclusionRobotic CC is a safe and technically feasible approach with high success and low complication rates. This study, the largest of its kind, supports the expanding role of robotic platforms in managing difficult gallbladder pathology in the re-operative setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.