ArticleJournal of surgery and research2026
Robotic Cholecystectomy: Outcomes, Safety, and Value in the Era of Advanced Technology.
Article in Journal of surgery and research, 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
Abstract
Robotic cholecystectomy has been increasingly adopted across general surgery, driven by potential advantages in visualization, instrument articulation, ergonomics, and fluorescence-guided biliary identification. However, its clinical value relative to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy remains debated, particularly given higher procedural costs and mixed comparative safety data. This narrative review synthesizes contemporary evidence from 2020 to 2025 comparing robotic and laparoscopic cholecystectomy, with emphasis on operative outcomes, perioperative recovery, complex biliary disease, cost, and patient-reported outcomes. Current data suggest that robotic cholecystectomy is associated with modestly longer operative time during early adoption, although efficiency may improve with increasing procedural familiarity and standardized workflow. Conversion to open surgery is a recurrent favorable outcome reported with robotics, particularly in difficult gallbladders, obesity, acute inflammation, and reoperative or post-inflammatory settings. Intraoperative safety findings remain heterogeneous. Population-level analyses have raised concern regarding bile duct injury, whereas contemporary institutional, registry, and nonelective analyses report low or comparable bile duct injury rates. Postoperative recovery, length of stay, wound complications, readmission, quality of life, and patient satisfaction are generally similar between approaches, with limited evidence of modest early pain or recovery advantages in selected studies. Economic data are more consistent, showing higher direct and indirect costs for robotic cholecystectomy and unfavorable cost-effectiveness in routine elective disease. Overall, contemporary evidence does not support routine replacement of laparoscopic cholecystectomy with robotic cholecystectomy for uncomplicated gallbladder disease. The robotic platform may be best positioned for selective use in technically complex cases where enhanced visualization, articulation, and operative control could reduce conversion risk or facilitate minimally invasive completion. Future prospective, severity-adjusted studies incorporating surgeon experience, patient-centered recovery, and full cost accounting are needed to clarify where robotic cholecystectomy provides measurable clinical value.
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.