Robotic versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Case-Control Outcome Analysis and Surgical Resident Training Implications

Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the established gold standard treatment for benign gallbladder diseases. However, robotic cholecystectomy is still controversial. Therefore, we aimed to compare intraoperative and postoperative outcomes in LC and robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) in patients with nonmalignant gallbladder conditions. PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched for studies comparing RAC to LC in patients with benign gallbladder disease. Only randomized trials and non-randomized studies with propensity score matching were included. Mean differences (MDs) were computed for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for binary endpoints, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics. Statistical analysis was performed using Software R, version 4.2.3. A total of 13 studies comprising 22,440 patients were included, of whom 10,758 patients (47.94%) underwent RAC. The mean age was 48.5 years and 65.2% were female. Compared with LC, RAC significantly increased operative time (MD 12.59 min; 95% CI 5.62-19.55; p < 0.01; I2 = 79%). However, there were no significant differences between the groups in hospitalization time (MD -0.18 days; 95% CI - 0.43-0.07; p = 0.07; I2 = 89%), occurrence of intraoperative complications (OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.38-1.15; p = 0.14; I2 = 35%) and bile duct injury (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.64, 1.55; p = 0.97; I2 = 0%). RAC was associated with an increase in operative time compared with LC without increasing hospitalization time or the incidence of intraoperative complications. These findings suggest that RAC is a safe approach to benign gallbladder disease.

Short-term outcomes and costs analysis of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy-a retrospective single-center analysis

PURPOSE

Robotic-assisted surgery is an alternative technique for patients undergoing minimal invasive cholecystectomy (CHE). The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes and costs of laparoscopic versus robotic CHE, previously described as the major disadvantage of the robotic system, in a single Austrian tertiary center.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center analysis was carried out of all patients who underwent an elective minimally invasive cholecystectomy between January 2010 and August 2020 at our tertiary referral institution. Patients were divided into two groups: robotic-assisted CHE (RC) and laparoscopic CHE (LC) and compared according to demographic data, short-term postoperative outcomes and costs.

RESULTS

In the study period, 2088 elective minimal invasive cholecystectomies were performed. Of these, 220 patients met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. One hundred ten (50%) patients underwent LC, and 110 patients RC. There was no significant difference in the mean operation time between both groups (RC: 60.2 min vs LC: 62.0 min; p = 0.58). Postoperative length of stay was the same in both groups (RC: 2.65 days vs LC: 2.65 days, p = 1). Overall hospital costs were slightly higher in the robotic group with a total of €2088 for RC versus €1726 for LC.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is a safe and feasible alternative to laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Since there are no significant clinical and cost differences between the two procedures, RC is a justified operation for training the whole operation team in handling the system as a first step procedure. Prospective randomized trials are necessary to confirm these conclusions.

The TransEnterix European Patient Registry for Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Procedures in Urology, Abdominal, Thoracic, and Gynecologic Surgery ("TRUST")

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery was first introduced in the mid-1980s, and at the end of the '90s, the da Vinci® System (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, California) was introduced in Europe and held a monopoly for years afterward. In 2016, Senhance™ digital laparoscopic platform (TransEnterix Inc., Morrisville, North Carolina) came to the market. This new platform is based on laparoscopic movements and is designed for laparoscopic surgeons. This study shows the surgical outcomes of patients after different visceral, colorectal, gynecological, and urological surgical procedures done with the Senhance™ digital laparoscopic platform with a focus on safety.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study population consists of 871 patients who underwent robotic surgery with the Senhance™ platform. The most common procedures were hernia repairs (unilateral and bilateral), cholecystectomies, and prostatectomies. The procedures were performed in five centers in Europe between February 2017 and July 2020 by experienced laparoscopic surgeons.

RESULTS

220 (25.3 %) out of 871 patients had a unilateral hernia repair, 70 (8.0%) a bilateral hernia repair, 159 (18.3%) underwent a cholecystectomy, and 168 (19.3%) a prostatectomy. The other procedures included visceral, colorectal, and gynecological surgery procedures. The median docking time was 7.46 minutes for the four most common procedures. The duration of surgery varied from 32 to 313 minutes, the average time was 114.31 minutes. Adverse events were rare overall. There were 48 (5.5 %) adverse events out of 871 patients, 24 of them (2.8 % of all cases) were severe. Out of all 24 severe adverse events, five events (20.8%) were likely related to the robot, 17 events (70.8%) were unlikely related to the robot, and two events (8.3%) could not be categorized. Regarding complications following unilateral hernia repairs, data from 212 patients was available. Thirteen (6.1%) complications occurred, and six of those (2.8%) were serious. Out of 68 patients with a bilateral hernia repair, six patients (8.8%) developed complications, three of which were severe (4.4%). The complication rate was 2.8% in the patients following a cholecystectomy (4/144); two of them serious. After prostatectomy, six out of 141 patients (4.3 %) had complications; one serious (0.7%) No mortality was observed. Data about unplanned conversions to laparoscopic surgery could be collected from 761 patients which is a rate of 3.7%. There were 12 conversions out of 760 procedures to open surgery (1.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our series shows these procedures are safe and reproducible. The findings suggest that the surgical results after robotic surgery with the Senhance™ system are promising. Long-term data regarding complication rates should be the subject of future studies.