Comparing Outcomes Between Robotic and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Acute Cholecystitis.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Zamaan Hooda, Deanna Dong, Ahmad Hlayhel, John Paul Bustamante, John Veltri, Franz Yanagawa, Toghrul Talishinskiy, Zbigniew Moszczynski, Derick Christian, Sydney Abaijan, Benjamin Rebein, Alan Sori, Scott Wessner
{"title":"Comparing Outcomes Between Robotic and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Acute Cholecystitis.","authors":"Zamaan Hooda, Deanna Dong, Ahmad Hlayhel, John Paul Bustamante, John Veltri, Franz Yanagawa, Toghrul Talishinskiy, Zbigniew Moszczynski, Derick Christian, Sydney Abaijan, Benjamin Rebein, Alan Sori, Scott Wessner","doi":"10.4293/JSLS.2025.00026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Although laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is considered the gold standard surgical approach for acute cholecystitis, there has been increased interest in robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) as an alternative treatment method. This study compares length of operative time and perioperative outcomes between these 2 techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified patients from a single institution between January 1, 2023 and December 31, 2023, who underwent surgical treatment for acute cholecystitis. Gathered data included demographic, clinicopathologic, and perioperative variables. Patients were stratified by LC or RAC surgical approaches. Pearson χ<sup>2</sup>, Fisher's exact, Mann-Whitney <i>U</i>, and unpaired <i>t</i> tests were utilized to compare collected variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 259 total patients, with 186 patients in the LC group (71.8%) and 73 in the RAC group (28.2%). Females comprised most both groups (LC, n = 125/186, 67.2%; RAC, n-n = 48/73, 65.8%, <i>P</i> = .884). Median age at surgery for LC patients was 43 years, and 49 for RAC patients (<i>P</i> = .341). As for operative time, the median duration for LC was 108 minutes and 68.2 minutes for RAC (<i>P</i> < .001). Nine LC (4.8%) patients and 1 RAC (1.4%, <i>P</i> = .192) had postoperative complications. Conversion to open or fenestrated cholecystectomy occurred in 8 LC (4.3%) patients and 4 RAC (5.5%, <i>P</i> = .745) patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrated that RAC has a shorter operative duration in comparison to LC. RAC also has a similar rate of complications and conversions as the laparoscopic approach. Our findings show that RAC is a safe and feasible alternative approach for treating acute cholecystitis.</p>","PeriodicalId":17679,"journal":{"name":"JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons","volume":"29 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12057727/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2025.00026","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Although laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is considered the gold standard surgical approach for acute cholecystitis, there has been increased interest in robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) as an alternative treatment method. This study compares length of operative time and perioperative outcomes between these 2 techniques.

Methods: We identified patients from a single institution between January 1, 2023 and December 31, 2023, who underwent surgical treatment for acute cholecystitis. Gathered data included demographic, clinicopathologic, and perioperative variables. Patients were stratified by LC or RAC surgical approaches. Pearson χ2, Fisher's exact, Mann-Whitney U, and unpaired t tests were utilized to compare collected variables.

Results: We identified 259 total patients, with 186 patients in the LC group (71.8%) and 73 in the RAC group (28.2%). Females comprised most both groups (LC, n = 125/186, 67.2%; RAC, n-n = 48/73, 65.8%, P = .884). Median age at surgery for LC patients was 43 years, and 49 for RAC patients (P = .341). As for operative time, the median duration for LC was 108 minutes and 68.2 minutes for RAC (P < .001). Nine LC (4.8%) patients and 1 RAC (1.4%, P = .192) had postoperative complications. Conversion to open or fenestrated cholecystectomy occurred in 8 LC (4.3%) patients and 4 RAC (5.5%, P = .745) patients.

Conclusions: This study demonstrated that RAC has a shorter operative duration in comparison to LC. RAC also has a similar rate of complications and conversions as the laparoscopic approach. Our findings show that RAC is a safe and feasible alternative approach for treating acute cholecystitis.

机器人胆囊切除术与腹腔镜胆囊切除术治疗急性胆囊炎的疗效比较。
导论:尽管腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)被认为是治疗急性胆囊炎的金标准手术方法,但机器人辅助胆囊切除术(RAC)作为一种替代治疗方法的兴趣越来越大。本研究比较了这两种技术的手术时间和围手术期结果。方法:我们从2023年1月1日至2023年12月31日在同一家医院接受急性胆囊炎手术治疗的患者中筛选。收集的数据包括人口统计学、临床病理和围手术期变量。采用LC或RAC手术入路对患者进行分层。使用Pearson χ2、Fisher’s exact、Mann-Whitney U和unpaired t检验来比较收集到的变量。结果:共确定259例患者,LC组186例(71.8%),RAC组73例(28.2%)。两组女性居多(LC, n = 125/186, 67.2%;RAC, n-n = 48/73, 65.8%, P = .884)。LC患者的中位手术年龄为43岁,RAC患者的中位手术年龄为49岁(P = 0.341)。在手术时间方面,LC组的中位持续时间为108分钟,RAC组的中位持续时间为68.2分钟(P P = 0.192)。8例LC患者(4.3%)和4例RAC患者(5.5%,P = .745)转为开窗或开窗胆囊切除术。结论:本研究表明RAC手术时间较LC短。RAC也有类似的并发症和转换率作为腹腔镜方法。我们的研究结果表明RAC是一种安全可行的治疗急性胆囊炎的替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
69
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: JSLS, Journal of the Society of Laparoscopic & Robotic Surgeons publishes original scientific articles on basic science and technical topics in all the fields involved with laparoscopic, robotic, and minimally invasive surgery. CRSLS, MIS Case Reports from SLS is dedicated to the publication of Case Reports in the field of minimally invasive surgery. The journals seek to advance our understandings and practice of minimally invasive, image-guided surgery by providing a forum for all relevant disciplines and by promoting the exchange of information and ideas across specialties.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信