JAMA surgery · 2026
Outcomes and Costs After Robotic vs Laparoscopic Complex Elective Cholecystectomy.
СтатьяСравнительное 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.
Caldwell Katharine E, Threlkeld Edie, Litrel Joseph, Brocke Tiffany, Fields Ryan C, Panni Roheena Z, Nguyen Trang, Leigh Natasha, Sanford Dominic E
Аннотация
IMPORTANCE: As the use of robotic cholecystectomy increases, its value remains poorly defined for complex elective cholecystectomy (CEC), where complex gallbladder pathology results in increased technical difficulty.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a robotic approach is associated with improved clinical outcomes and altered total hospital cost as compared with a laparoscopic approach for patients undergoing CEC.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study analyzed data from an academic hepatobiliary referral center for patients who underwent cholecystectomy from August 2018 to August 2024. CEC was defined by preoperative criteria: prior aborted or partial cholecystectomy, presence of a cholecystostomy tube, and/or history of gallbladder perforation or fistula.
EXPOSURE: Robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of an unplanned postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or interventional radiology procedure. Secondary outcomes included operative time, postoperative complications, and operative and total hospital costs.
RESULTS: A total of 863 patients underwent cholecystectomy and met inclusion criteria; 525 (60.8%) were female and 338 (39.2%) were male, and their median (IQR) age was 61 (45-71) years. Among patients undergoing CEC, the laparoscopic approach was independently associated with an increased need for unplanned endoscopic or percutaneous intervention compared with the robotic group (odds ratio, 4.24; 95% CI, 1.24-14.52; P = .02). There were no significant differences in postoperative outcomes between the laparoscopic and robotic groups in patients undergoing non-CEC. Patients undergoing the laparoscopic approach had significantly reduced operating room costs when compared with patients undergoing a robotic approach in both the CEC ($7720 vs $8936, respectively) and non-CEC groups ($6368 vs $ 8351, respectively). However, there was no difference in the overall total cost of care between laparoscopic CEC and robotic CEC groups ($14 309 vs $14 476, respectively). The overall total cost of care was significantly higher for patients undergoing robotic non-CEC as compared with laparoscopic non-CEC ($11 416 vs $9925, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study found that for complex gallbladder disease, robotic cholecystectomy offers a clinical advantage, reducing complications and downstream interventions without increasing the overall costs of care. These findings suggest strategic application of the robotic platform may offer clinical advantages in high-complexity gallbladder surgery, maximizing patient benefit and resource efficiency.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a robotic approach is associated with improved clinical outcomes and altered total hospital cost as compared with a laparoscopic approach for patients undergoing CEC.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study analyzed data from an academic hepatobiliary referral center for patients who underwent cholecystectomy from August 2018 to August 2024. CEC was defined by preoperative criteria: prior aborted or partial cholecystectomy, presence of a cholecystostomy tube, and/or history of gallbladder perforation or fistula.
EXPOSURE: Robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of an unplanned postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or interventional radiology procedure. Secondary outcomes included operative time, postoperative complications, and operative and total hospital costs.
RESULTS: A total of 863 patients underwent cholecystectomy and met inclusion criteria; 525 (60.8%) were female and 338 (39.2%) were male, and their median (IQR) age was 61 (45-71) years. Among patients undergoing CEC, the laparoscopic approach was independently associated with an increased need for unplanned endoscopic or percutaneous intervention compared with the robotic group (odds ratio, 4.24; 95% CI, 1.24-14.52; P = .02). There were no significant differences in postoperative outcomes between the laparoscopic and robotic groups in patients undergoing non-CEC. Patients undergoing the laparoscopic approach had significantly reduced operating room costs when compared with patients undergoing a robotic approach in both the CEC ($7720 vs $8936, respectively) and non-CEC groups ($6368 vs $ 8351, respectively). However, there was no difference in the overall total cost of care between laparoscopic CEC and robotic CEC groups ($14 309 vs $14 476, respectively). The overall total cost of care was significantly higher for patients undergoing robotic non-CEC as compared with laparoscopic non-CEC ($11 416 vs $9925, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study found that for complex gallbladder disease, robotic cholecystectomy offers a clinical advantage, reducing complications and downstream interventions without increasing the overall costs of care. These findings suggest strategic application of the robotic platform may offer clinical advantages in high-complexity gallbladder surgery, maximizing patient benefit and resource efficiency.