Robotic Cholecystectomy: Outcomes, Safety, and Value in the Era of Advanced Technology.

Journal of surgery and research Pub Date : 2026-09-01 Epub Date: 2026-09-07 DOI:10.26502/jsr.10020518
Shaanali Mukadam, Madeleine T Dang, Chang Kon Kim, Timothy J Chu, Daniel H Choi, Devendra K Agrawal
{"title":"Robotic Cholecystectomy: Outcomes, Safety, and Value in the Era of Advanced Technology.","authors":"Shaanali Mukadam, Madeleine T Dang, Chang Kon Kim, Timothy J Chu, Daniel H Choi, Devendra K Agrawal","doi":"10.26502/jsr.10020518","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":73961,"journal":{"name":"Journal of surgery and research","volume":"9 3","pages":"273-284"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13600346/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of surgery and research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26502/jsr.10020518","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/9/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

机器人胆囊切除术:先进技术时代的结果、安全性和价值。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书