Robotic-assisted Cholecystectomy Research Articles

Three-arm robotic cholecystectomy: a novel, cost-effective method of delivering and learning robotic surgery in upper GI surgery.

Cholecystectomy is one of the commonest performed surgeries worldwide. With the introduction of robotic surgery, the numbers of robot-assisted cholecystectomies has risen over the past decade. Despite the proven use of this procedure as a training operation for those surgeons adopting robotics, the consumable cost of routine robotic cholecystectomy can be difficult to justify in the absence of evidence favouring or disputing this approach.Here, we describe a novel method for performing a robot-assisted cholecystectomyusing a "three-arm" techniqueon the newer, 4th generation, da Vinci system. Whilst maintaining the ability to perform precision dissection, this method reduces the consumable cost by 46%. The initial series of 109 procedures proves this procedure to be safe, feasible, trainable and time efficient.

Initial experience of a single surgeon for safety and feasibility of the Versius Robotic System in robot-assisted cholecystectomy and hernia repair.

This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and perioperative outcomes of cholecystectomy and hernia repair performed with the Versius Robotic System by a surgeon with no prior robotic surgery experience. A retrospective analysis was conducted on adult patients who underwent cholecystectomy, inguinal, or umbilical hernia repair using the Versius Robotic System between August 2021 and June 2023 et al. Zahra Hospital, Dubai, UAE. A total of 105 patients (mean age 38.9 ± 9.2years) were included. Significant correlations existed between the number of robot-assisted cholecystectomies and the operative metrics. As the number increased, the duration of the total operative (r = -0.755, p < 0.001), docking (r = -0.683, p < 0.001), and console (r = -0.711, p < 0.001) times decreased, indicating improved efficiency with experience. This study demonstrates the safety and feasibility of the Versius Robotic System for cholecystectomy and hernia repair, even for surgeons lacking prior robotic surgery experience.

Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy: stepping stone to expertise or vogue?

Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy: stepping stone to expertise or vogue?

Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy in the third trimester of pregnancy

Acute and chronic cholecystitis commonly occur during pregnancy. Hormonal changes during pregnancy put women at a higher risk of forming gallstones and biliary dyskinesia leading to disease. The standard of care for acute cholecystitis is to have an elective cholecystectomy within 48 hours. Extensive research exists on the current practice of performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy in pregnancy. Based on our review of the current literature, there is only one report that details a robotic cholecystectomy performed on a pregnant patient. This report will detail the methods used to perform the surgery and steps taken to ensure the safety of mother and fetus.  It will describe the unique circumstances surrounding the robotic technique used in this case and include the demographics and background of this patient, in an effort to promote this technique in future cases.&#x0D;  &#x0D; Key words: obstetrics, acute cholecystitis, symptomatic cholelithiasis, pregnancy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, robotic-assisted cholecystectomy

Initial experience of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy in a tertiary care teaching hospital

Abstract Background: Robotic surgery was designed to overcome some of the major limitations of laparoscopy in terms of visibility, dexterity and precision. However, its potential limitations include high costs and low tactile feedback. at a tertiary care teaching hospital. Methods: In this retrospective study, we assessed the safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy using the Versius Surgical Robot System® at our tertiary care teaching hospital between 2 September 2021 and 22 August 2022. Results: Of the 30 patients studied, 11 were males. The mean body mass index of the patients was 25.7. Intraoperative complications were noted in one case (haemorrhage from the liver bed) and conversion to laparoscopic surgery was noted in the same case. The median docking time was 16 min and the median console time was 72 min. No post-operative complications were noted. Both docking time and console time significantly decreased throughout this study. Conclusions: This study shows that the robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is a promising, safe and feasible alternative to traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Robot assisted Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy- A Comparative study

Background- Robotic surgery has recently grown in acceptance and usefulness in general surgery, and it may offer superior results to laparoscopic surgery in some gastrointestinal operations. Objectives- To assess if the use of robot assistance during laparoscopic cholecystectomy is warranted when compared to traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods- It was a retrospective record based study. All patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic cholecystectomy between 2019 and 2022 at a single academic medical center were captured using institutional data. A total of 110 robotic surgeries were done and 1200 Laparoscopic cholecystectomies was done during the study period. The bulk of cases were primarily handled by two acute care general surgeons, who also conducted robotic and laparoscopic cholecystectomies. The institutional Clinical Data Repository provided the financial information. The study was approved by Institutional Ethics Committee. Age, sex, race, body mass index (BMI), and comorbid conditions of the patient were examined prior to surgery. SPSS was used for analysis. Results- A total of 1310 patients were identified who underwent robotic or laparoscopic cholecystectomy between 2019 and 2022 among them Robotic-assisted approach was used in 9.1% (n = 110) of cases. There were no demographic differences in age, sex, race, and body mass index (BMI). Type II diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and CHF disease were statistically significantly different between groups. Mean age (Robotic: 41 [29-56] vs. Laparoscopic: 43 [30-54] years, p = 0.11) and BMI (Robotic: 28.4 [26.6-32.4] vs. Laparoscopic: 29.2 [27.5-33.4]) were similar between groups. both operative duration was greater and hospital cost were greater in robotic-assisted cholecystectomy and it was statistically significant (p&lt;0.05), but hospital duration of stay and 90-day related readmission rates were less in robotic-assisted cholecystectomy which was significant; 30-day readmission rates were similar between both groups. Conclusion- When compared to laparoscopic cholecystectomy, robotic cholecystectomy has longer operating times and higher hospital costs, but it is also related with shorter hospital stays and a lower readmission rate within 90 days after the index procedure. Before exploring robotic cholecystectomy, hospitals and surgeons must weigh the enhanced clinical outcomes against the time and money necessary.

A retrospective study of laparoscopic, robotic-assisted, and open emergent/urgent cholecystectomy based on the PINC AI Healthcare Database 2017–2020

BackgroundRobotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) is becoming increasingly common, but the outcomes of emergent/urgent robotic-assisted cholecystectomies compared to emergent laparoscopic (LC) and open cholecystectomies (OC) remain understudied.MethodsThe PINC AI Healthcare Database was queried to identify adults who underwent emergent or urgent (Em-Ur) cholecystectomy between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2020. Immediate postoperative and 30-day outcomes were identified including intraoperative complications, transfusion, conversion, postoperative complication, and hospital length of stay. Propensity score matching was done to compare outcomes between Em-Ur robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and open cholecystectomies Subgroup analyses were performed comparing RAC done with and without fluorescent imaging as well as comparing RAC and LC performed for patients with class 3 obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2).ResultsRAC Em-Ur cholecystectomies are being performed with increasing frequency and is the most utilized modality for patients with class 3 obesity. There was no difference in intraoperative complications (0.3%), bile duct injury (0.2%), or postoperative outcomes between RAC and LC. LC had significantly shorter operating room times (96 min (75,128)) compared to RAC (120 min (90,150)). There was a significant lower rate of conversion to open in RAC (1.9%) relative to LC (3.2%) in both the overall population and the class 3 obesity sub-analysis (RAC-2.6% vs. LC-4.4%). There was no difference in outcomes in robotic-assisted cholecystectomies done with and without fluorescent imaging.ConclusionsA comparison of propensity score-matched cohorts of emergent/urgent robotic-assisted and laparoscopic cholecystectomy indicates that robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is a safe alternative to laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and that both have superior outcomes to open cholecystectomies.

A Medium-Term Comparison of Quality of Life and Pain After Robotic or Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

IntroductionWe sought to compare medium-term outcomes between robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RC) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) using validated quality of life (QoL) and pain assessments. Materials and MethodsPatients who underwent RC or LC between 2012 and 2017 at a single academic institution were examined. Cases converted to open were excluded. Patients were contacted by telephone in 2019 and completed two standardized surveys to rate their QoL and pain. ResultsOf those screened, 122 (35.8%) completed both surveys. Ninety three (76.2%) underwent RC and 29 (23.8%) underwent LC. The groups (RC versus LC) were similar based on mean age (47.9 versus 45.5 y, P = 0.48), gender (66.7% versus 72.4% female, P = 0.56), race (86.0% White/5.4% Black versus 72.4% White/13.8% Black, P = 0.2), insurance status (98.9% versus 100.0% insured, P = 0.58), median body mass index (31.8 versus 31.3, P = 0.43), and median Charlson Comorbidity Index (1 versus 0, P = 0.14). Fewer RC patients had a history of steroid use compared to LC (16.1% versus 34.5%, P = 0.03). No overall significant difference in QoL was demonstrated. LC group had higher severity of “tiring-exhausting pain” (P = 0.04), “electric-shock pain” (P = 0.003), and “shooting pain” (P = 0.05). The “overall intensity” of pain in the “gallbladder region” between the groups was similar at the time of follow-up (P = 0.31). ConclusionsQoL over 2-7 y following time of surgery is comparable for robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomies. The laparoscopic approach may be associated with a higher severity of subset categories of pain, but overall pain between the two approaches is comparable.

A multifactorial evaluation of objective performance indicators and video analysis in the context of case complexity and clinical outcomes in robotic-assisted cholecystectomy.

The increased digitization in robotic surgical procedures today enables surgeons to quantify their movements through data captured directly from the robotic system. These calculations, called objective performance indicators (OPIs), offer unprecedented detail into surgical performance. In this study, we link case- and surgical step-specific OPIs to case complexity, surgical experience and console utilization, and post-operative clinical complications across 87 robotic cholecystectomy (RC) cases. Videos of RCs performed by a principal surgeon with and without fellows were segmented into eight surgical steps and linked to patients' clinical data. Data for OPI calculations were extracted from an Intuitive Data Recorder and the da Vinci ® robotic system. RC cases were each assigned a Nassar and Parkland Grading score and categorized as standard or complex. OPIs were compared across complexity groups, console attributions, and post-surgical complication severities to determine objective relationships across variables. Across cases, differences in camera control and head positioning metrics of the principal surgeon were observed when comparing standard and complex cases. Further, OPI differences across the principal surgeon and the fellow(s) were observed in standard cases and include differences in arm swapping, camera control, and clutching behaviors. Monopolar coagulation energy usage differences were also observed. Select surgical step duration differences were observed across complexities and console attributions, and additional surgical task analyses determine the adhesion removal and liver bed hemostasis steps to be the most impactful steps for case complexity and post-surgical complications, respectively. This is the first study to establish the association between OPIs, case complexities, and clinical complications in RC. We identified OPI differences in intra-operative behaviors and post-surgical complications dependent on surgeon expertise and case complexity, opening the door for more standardized assessments of teaching cases, surgical behaviors and case complexities.

Comparative Safety of Robotic-Assisted vs Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is rapidly being adopted into practice, partly based on the belief that it offers specific technical and safety advantages over traditional laparoscopic surgery. Whether robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is safer than laparoscopic cholecystectomy remains unclear. To determine the uptake of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy and to analyze its comparative safety vs laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This retrospective cohort study used Medicare administrative claims data for nonfederal acute care hospitals from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2019. Participants included 1 026 088 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries 66 to 99 years of age who underwent cholecystectomy with continuous Medicare coverage for 3 months before and 12 months after surgery. Data were analyzed August 17, 2022, to June 1, 2023. Surgical technique used to perform cholecystectomy: robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic approaches. The primary outcome was rate of bile duct injury requiring definitive surgical reconstruction within 1 year after cholecystectomy. Secondary outcomes were composite outcome of bile duct injury requiring less-invasive postoperative surgical or endoscopic biliary interventions, and overall incidence of 30-day complications. Multivariable logistic analysis was performed adjusting for patient factors and clustered within hospital referral regions. An instrumental variable analysis was performed, leveraging regional variation in the adoption of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy within hospital referral regions over time, to account for potential confounding from unmeasured differences between treatment groups. A total of 1 026 088 patients (mean [SD] age, 72 [12.0] years; 53.3% women) were included in the study. The use of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy increased 37-fold from 211 of 147 341 patients (0.1%) in 2010 to 6507 of 125 211 patients (5.2%) in 2019. Compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy, robotic-assisted cholecystectomy was associated with a higher rate of bile duct injury necessitating a definitive operative repair within 1 year (0.7% vs 0.2%; relative risk [RR], 3.16 [95% CI, 2.57-3.75]). Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy was also associated with a higher rate of postoperative biliary interventions, such as endoscopic stenting (7.4% vs 6.0%; RR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.16-1.33]). There was no significant difference in overall 30-day complication rates between the 2 procedures. The instrumental variable analysis, which was designed to account for potential unmeasured differences in treatment groups, also showed that robotic-assisted cholecystectomy was associated with a higher rate of bile duct injury (0.4% vs 0.2%; RR, 1.88 [95% CI, 1.14-2.63]). This cohort study's finding of significantly higher rates of bile duct injury with robotic-assisted cholecystectomy compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy suggests that the utility of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy should be reconsidered, given the existence of an already minimally invasive, predictably safe laparoscopic approach.

407 Robotic Assisted Cholecystectomy and Common Bile Duct Exploration for Single Stage Management of Complex Gallstone Disease

Abstract Aim Laparoscopic cholecystectomy and common bile duct exploration (LC-CBDE) is an alternative to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for treatment of choledocholithiasis. The ‘Achilles heel’ of LC-CBDE is the choledochotomy incision and closure following duct clearance. Robotic assisted surgery (RAS) aspires to overcome these technical challenges by providing improved views (3D enhancement) and articulated instruments potentially improving surgical precision. We aim to scrutinise the outcomes of an early series of robotic assisted cholecystectomy and common bile duct exploration (RC-CBDE) cases performed at our institution. Method Retrospective analysis from a specialist benign pancreatico-biliary unit in the United Kingdom was undertaken from April 2022 – December 2022 inclusive. All patients who underwent RC-CBDE for complicated gallstone disease were included. Collated data included patient demographics, perioperative investigations, intraoperative approach, and postoperative outcomes. Results 10 patients were identified. Median (IQR) age was 51 (33 – 66) years. Median (IQR) BMI was 26 (21 – 32) kg/m2. Median (IQR) Charlson Co-morbidity Index (CCI) was 1 (0 – 4). 4 patients were operated on during the acute presentation, with median (IQR) bilirubin 51 (34 – 252.5). Median (IQR) operative time was 176 (124 – 222) minutes. Median (IQR) post-operative length of stay was 4 (1 – 5) days. One patient required reintervention for port site hernia repair from drain site. Conclusions RC-CBDE is a safe and effective treatment for choledocholithiasis with equivocal outcomes to LC-CBDE. Benefits of RAS include enhanced views and ergonomics aiding precise closure of choledochotomy, which may both reduce complications and promote wider uptake of common bile duct exploration – a previously underutilised, technically-challenging operative procedure.

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

PurposeRobotic-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.MethodsA 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsRobotic-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.

Safety and Feasibility of Cholecystectomy with the HugoTM RAS: Proof of Setup Guides and First-In-Human German Experience

Introduction: The Hugo RAS robotic platform by Medtronic was recently certified for human use in Europe. Several centers have gained initial experience with this system in urology and gynecology. However, few data about its feasibility and safety in general surgery have been published. Methods: The first-in-human surgical procedures with the Hugo RAS in Germany were performed at our hospital in February 2023. We report our early experience with robotic cholecystectomy using this new platform. The primary aim was to test the setup guides of the manufacturer and to evaluate the safety and feasibility of Hugo RAS for this procedure. Results: A modified setup with two 11-mm ports and two 8-mm ports without an assistant port was used in 14 consecutive cases. A 30° or a 0° camera, a bipolar grasper or a Maryland on the left arm, a monopolar scissors on the right arm, and a double-fenestrated grasper on the additional arm were mounted. Clip application and gallbladder extraction were performed by the bedside assistant through the right arm 11-mm port. There were no complications, no adverse events, and no conversions. Arm collisions were reduced through slight corrections in trocar positions. Conclusion: Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy with the Hugo RAS was safe and feasible. The modularity of robotic arms allows individual setup modifications which may be of advantage for patients and surgeons.

Robot-assisted cholecystectomy with the new HUGO™ robotic-assisted system: first worldwide report with system description, docking settings, and video.

Robotic surgery has gained worldwide acceptance in the past decade, and several studies have shown that this technique is safe and feasible. The innovation of this system is the open surgical console with an HD-3D display, a system tower, and four independent arm carts. We describe the first robot-assisted cholecystectomy performed with the new Hugo RAS (robotic-assisted surgery) system (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) in Spain. The procedure was completed without conversion. No intraoperative complication or technical failure of the system was recorded. The operative time was 70min. The docking time was 3min. Hospital length of stay was 1days. This case report shows the safety and feasibility of cholecystectomy with the Hugo RAS system and provides relevant data that may be of help to early adopters of this surgical platform.

Effects of extremely low-pressure pneumoperitoneum on postoperative recovery after single site robot-assisted cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial.

A robotic platform has enabled extremely low-pressure pneumoperitoneum (ELPP, 4 mmHg) to reduce surgical insults to human physiology during a minimally invasive surgery. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of ELPP in single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC) on postoperative pain, shoulder pain, and physiological changes during surgery compared to a standard pressure pneumoperitoneum (SPP, 12-14 mmHg). A total of 182 patients who underwent an elective cholecystectomy were randomized into an ELPP SSRC group (n = 91) and an SPP SSRC group (n = 91). Postoperative pain was assessed at 6, 12, 24, and 48 h after surgery. The number of patients complaining of shoulder pain was observed. Intraoperative changes of ventilatory parameters were also measured. Postoperative pain scores (p = 0.038, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p = 0.015 at 6, 12, 24, and 48 h after surgery, respectively) and the number of patients with shoulder pain (p <0.001) were significantly lower in the ELPP SSRC group than in the SPP SSRC group. Intraoperative changes in peak inspiratory pressure (p < 0.001), plateau pressure (p < 0.001), EtCO2 (p < 0.001), and lung compliance (p < 0.001) were also less in the ELPP SSRC group. The ELPP during robotic cholecystectomy could significantly relieve postoperative pain and shoulder pain. In addition, the ELPP can reduce changes in lung compliance during surgery and the demand for postoperative analgesics, thereby improving the quality of life of patients during early stages of postoperative rehabilitation.

Retrospective analysis of operative time and time to discharge for laparoscopic vs robotic approaches to appendectomy and cholecystectomy.

Robotic-assisted appendectomies and cholecystectomies are believed to increase cost compared to the gold standard laparoscopic approach. Two equally qualified surgeons performed both approaches over 2 years to evaluate intraoperative duration, time to discharge, conversion to open procedure, and readmission within 30days. 110 laparoscopic, 81 robotic-assisted appendectomies; and 105 laparoscopic and 165 robotic-assisted cholecystectomies were performed. Intraoperative time; laparoscopic appendectomy was 1.402 vs 1.3615h for robotic-assisted (P value = 0.304); laparoscopic cholecystectomy was 1.692 vs 1.634h for robotic-assisted (P value = 0.196). Time to discharge, was 38.26 forlaparoscopic vs 28.349h for robotic-assisted appendectomy (P value = 0.010), and 35.95 for laparoscopic vs 28.46h for robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (P value = 0.002). Intraoperative conversion to open; only laparoscopic procedures were converted,one appendectomy and nine cholecystectomies. None in therobotic-assisted procedures. Readmissions, none in the appendectomy group and three in the cholecystectomy group. One laparoscopic and two robotic-assisted cholecystectomy patients were readmitted. Intraoperative times for robotic appendectomy and cholecystectomy were notlonger thanlaparoscopic approach. Robotic approach shortened the time to discharge and the likelihood for conversion to open procedure.

Robot-assisted cholecystectomy in children

Robot-assisted cholecystectomy in children

Laryngeal Cancer Surgery: History and Current Indications of Transoral Laser Microsurgery and Transoral Robotic Surgery.

The development of transoral laser microsurgery (TLM) was an important step in the history of conservative laryngeal surgery. TLM reported comparable oncological outcomes and better functional postoperative and rehabilitation outcomes than open partial laryngectomy. TLM is currently considered as the standard surgical approach for early-stage laryngeal carcinoma. However, TLM has many limitations, including the limited view of the surgical field through the laryngoscope, exposure difficulties for some tumor locations, and a long learning curve. The development of transoral robotic surgery (TORS) appears to be an important issue to overcome these limitations. The current robotic technologies used in surgery benefited from the research of the U.S. Military and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in the 1970s and 1980s. The first application in humans started in the 2000s with the first robotic-assisted cholecystectomy in the US, performed by a surgeon located in France. The use of robots in otolaryngology occurred after the development of the Da Vinci system in digestive surgery, urology, and gynecology, and mainly concerns cT1-T2 and some selected cT3 oropharyngeal and supraglottic carcinomas. With the development of a new robotic system with smaller arms and instruments, TORS indications will probably evolve in the next few years, leading to better outcomes for laryngeal or hypopharyngeal carcinomas.

Robotic assisted cholecystectomy – A retrospective cohort study of experience of 106 first robotic cholecystectomies in versius robotic platform

IntroductionLaparoscopic cholecystectomy is currently the standard of care for symptomatic cholelithiasis as well as for chronic and acute cholecystitis. The incidence of bile duct injury in laparoscopic cholecystectomy is still higher than that in open surgery. Surgical robots aim to bridge this gap. With the greater availability of surgical robots and cheaper alternatives to the Da Vinci system, surgeons can take advantage of the better manoeuvrability and better vision that a surgical robot offers. This is likely to make robotic assisted cholecystectomy a very safe option. Here, we present our early data on the robotic procedures performed by the Versius robotic system by CMR (Cambridge Medical Robotics). MethodsIt is a retrospective study, with data collected from our prospectively maintained database at Swagat Super Speciality Surgical Institute and NH, maintained collectively by CMR and our surgical residents. The first consecutive 106 planned robotic cholecystectomies that were performed by a single surgeon were included in the study. ResultsOut of 106 serial planned robotic assisted cholecystectomies (101 robotic assisted cholecystectomies + 5 combined with other procedures), no bile duct injury was reported, with a mean console time of 54.16 min and a mean setup time of 9.29 min. One procedure had to be converted to open for malignancy, and another patient had to be converted to laparoscopy due to dense adhesions with the duodenum. Three chronic liver disease (CLD) patients underwent partial cholecystectomy. A total of 70.75% of patients had no pain – visual analogy scale (VAS) pain score of 0 at POD 1 with minimal blood loss in most of the procedures. No learning curve for robotic assisted cholecystectomy was seen. ConclusionAlthough robotic assisted cholecystectomy was mostly chosen for patients in whom difficult cholecystectomy was clinically anticipated, it fared quite well. The learning curve was essentially non-existent. Robotic assisted cholecystectomy is a safe and feasible option in both simple and difficult cases of gallbladder disease.

Micro-Hand Robot-Assisted Versus da Vinci Robot-Assisted Cholecystectomy: A Multi-centre, Randomized Controlled Trial.

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of micro-hand robot-assisted cholecystectomy (MRC) by comparing the clinical outcomes of patients with benign gallbladder disease treated with micro-hand or da Vinci robot-assisted cholecystectomy (DRC). This is a prospective, multi-centre, single-blind, and randomized controlled trial. In this study, 166 patients of benign gallbladder disease were randomized enrolled into two groups and received MRC or DRC (83 in the MRC group; 83 in the DRC group). The primary endpoint was surgical success rate. Secondary endpoints were the docking time, console time, total operation time, intraoperative blood loss, gallbladder breakage rate, postoperative pain, time of first flatus, the comprehensive complication index (CCI), and the hospital stay of the subjects. The duration of follow-up was 30days. No conversion occurred. Compared with MRC, the DRC group showed longer docking time (12.04min vs. 16.39min, P = 0.025) and higher gallbladder breach rate (4.8% vs. 15.7%, P = 0.021). The MRC group showed higher postoperative pain scores compared to DRC (4.0 vs 3.0, P = 0.038). The console time, intraoperative blood loss, and gallbladder breach rate were comparable in these two groups (P &gt; 0.05). No differences were observed in postoperative outcomes and complications between the two groups (P &gt; 0.05). In patients with benign gallbladder disease, the MRC showed no obvious clinical disadvantage compared with the da Vinci surgical robot. MRC is effective and safe and provides more options for surgical treatment. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04122261). URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04122261.