Feasibility of robotic cholecystectomy at an academic center with a young robotic surgery program: a retrospective cohort study with umbrella review

• Published in: Journal of robotic surgery Vol. 18; no. 1; p. 93
• Main Authors: Corzo, Maria Paula, Tomey, Daniel, Martinino, Alessandro, Secchi, Roberto, Elzein, Steven, Lee, Yoon Kyung, Abou-Mrad, Adel, Oviedo, Rodolfo J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Springer London 27-02-2024; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Abscesses; Bile; Blood transfusions; Body mass index; Body size; Cholecystectomy; Emergency medical care; Endoscopy; Feasibility; Gallbladder; Hernias; Intensive care; Intestinal obstruction; Laparoscopy; Length of stay; Medical personnel; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Minimally Invasive Surgery; Morbidity; Mortality; Pathology; Patient safety; Review boards; Robotic surgery; Surgeons; Surgery; Surgical site infections; Urology; Cholecystectomy; Minimally invasive surgery; Laparoscopic; Robotic
• ISSN: 1863-2491; 1863-2483; 1863-2491
• DOI: 10.1007/s11701-024-01824-x

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has been standard of care for surgical treatment of benign gallbladder pathology for decades. With the advent of robotic surgical technology, robotic cholecystectomy (RC) has gained attention as an alternative to conventional laparoscopy. This study introduces a single-surgeon experience with laparoscopic versus robotic cholecystectomy and an umbrella systematic review of the outcomes of both approaches. A retrospective chart review was performed at a single institution on a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder pathology. An umbrella systematic review was conducted using PRISMA methodology. A total of 103 patients were identified; 61 patients underwent LC and 42 underwent RC. In the RC cohort, 17 cases were completed using a four-port technique while 25 were completed using a three-port technique. Patients undergoing RC were older compared to the LC group (44.78 vs 57.02 years old;
p
 < 0.001) and exhibited lower body mass index (29.37 vs 32.37 kg/m
2
,
p
 = 0.040). No statistically significant difference in operative time or need for postoperative ERCP was noted. Neither this series nor the umbrella systematic review revealed significant differences in conversion to open surgery or readmissions between the LC and RC cohorts. Three-port RC was associated with reduced operative time compared to four-port RC (101.28 vs 150.76 min;
p
 < 0.001). Robotic cholecystectomy is feasible and safe at a young robotic surgery program in an academic center setting and comparable to laparoscopic cholecystectomy clinical outcomes.