Surgical endoscopy · 2026
Propensity score-matched multicentric observational cohort study comparing robotic cholecystectomy with laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНаблюдательное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mehrotra Magan, Baijal Manish, Wadhawan Randeep, Kumar Chukka Gautam, Goel Mallika, Galhotra Anmol, Goel Lakshay, Nadgare Snehal Shirish, Pasula Anurag, Chaurasia Devendra, Bindal Vivek
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: With increasing penetration of robotic surgery, robotic cholecystectomies are becoming more popular. There are several benefits which may be possible with the use of robotic platforms for cholecystectomy. These are reduced pain, lesser blood loss, and the potential for artificial intelligence integration. We evaluated the use of RC using three different robotic platforms at four tertiary care hospitals against the standard LC for preset objectives. To the best of our knowledge, there are no studies till now which have compared RC using different robotic platforms against LC.
METHODS: This study is a prospective, multicentric, observational cohort study comparing data of all cholecystectomies performed at four tertiary care teaching hospitals between August 2025 and November 2025. The patients decided which procedure they would like to undergo, depending on their preference, making an informed decision. The difficulty of the procedure or other disease/patient related factors did not dictate the choice of procedure for a given patient. Data regarding patient demographics, comorbidities, per-operative details, and postoperative pain and complications were captured.
RESULTS: Propensity score matching was performed and the following variables were significantly associated (p < 0.05) with the variable 'Surgery': age group, operative time (Minutes), Prince Henry Pain Score (4 Hours), Prince Henry Pain Score (POD 1), Prince Henry Pain Score (POD 7), analgesia requirement (POD 7), most painful port (4 Hours), most painful port (POD 1), Most Painful Port (POD 7), and return to work (days).
CONCLUSION: Robotic cholecystectomy is as safe as LC. Propensity score-matched data show that RC is associated with longer operative times, less postoperative pain and analgesia requirements, and earlier return to work when compared to LC.
METHODS: This study is a prospective, multicentric, observational cohort study comparing data of all cholecystectomies performed at four tertiary care teaching hospitals between August 2025 and November 2025. The patients decided which procedure they would like to undergo, depending on their preference, making an informed decision. The difficulty of the procedure or other disease/patient related factors did not dictate the choice of procedure for a given patient. Data regarding patient demographics, comorbidities, per-operative details, and postoperative pain and complications were captured.
RESULTS: Propensity score matching was performed and the following variables were significantly associated (p < 0.05) with the variable 'Surgery': age group, operative time (Minutes), Prince Henry Pain Score (4 Hours), Prince Henry Pain Score (POD 1), Prince Henry Pain Score (POD 7), analgesia requirement (POD 7), most painful port (4 Hours), most painful port (POD 1), Most Painful Port (POD 7), and return to work (days).
CONCLUSION: Robotic cholecystectomy is as safe as LC. Propensity score-matched data show that RC is associated with longer operative times, less postoperative pain and analgesia requirements, and earlier return to work when compared to LC.