Banujan Balachandran1, Theadore A Hufford2, Taha Mustafa1, Kunal Kochar1, Suela Sulo3, Joubin Khorsand4. 1. Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, IL, USA. 2. University of Illinois Metropolitan Group General Surgery Residency, Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, IL, USA. 3. Russell Institute for Research and Innovation, Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, IL, USA. 4. Division of General Surgery, Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, 1775 Dempster Street, Park Ridge, IL, USA. sentinelnode1@yahoo.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of single-site robotic cholecystectomy with multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy within a high-volume tertiary health care center. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained data was conducted on patients undergoing single-site robotic cholecystectomy or multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy between October 2011 and July 2014. A single surgeon performed all the surgeries included in the study. RESULTS: A total of 678 cholecystectomies were performed. Of these, 415 (61%) were single-site robotic cholecystectomies and 263 (39%) were multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Laparoscopic patients had a greater mean BMI (30.5 vs. 29.0 kg/m2; p = 0.008), were more likely to have undergone prior abdominal surgery (83.3 vs. 41.4%; p < 0.001) and had a higher incidence of preexisting comorbidities (76.1 vs. 67.2%; p = 0.014) as compared to the robotic group. There was no statistical difference in the total operative time, rate of conversion to open procedure and mean length of follow-up between the two groups. The mean length of hospital stay was shorter for patients within the robotic group (1.9 vs. 2.4 days; p = 0.012). Single-site robotic cholecystectomy was associated with a higher rate of wound infection (3.9 vs. 1.1%; p = 0.037) and incisional hernia (6.5 vs. 1.9%; p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy should remain the gold standard therapy for gallbladder disease. Single-site robotic cholecystectomy is an effective alternative procedure for uncomplicated benign gallbladder disease in properly selected patients. This must be carefully balanced against a high rate of surgical site infection and incisional hernia, and patients should be informed of these risks.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of single-site robotic cholecystectomy with multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy within a high-volume tertiary health care center. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained data was conducted on patients undergoing single-site robotic cholecystectomy or multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy between October 2011 and July 2014. A single surgeon performed all the surgeries included in the study. RESULTS: A total of 678 cholecystectomies were performed. Of these, 415 (61%) were single-site robotic cholecystectomies and 263 (39%) were multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Laparoscopic patients had a greater mean BMI (30.5 vs. 29.0 kg/m2; p = 0.008), were more likely to have undergone prior abdominal surgery (83.3 vs. 41.4%; p < 0.001) and had a higher incidence of preexisting comorbidities (76.1 vs. 67.2%; p = 0.014) as compared to the robotic group. There was no statistical difference in the total operative time, rate of conversion to open procedure and mean length of follow-up between the two groups. The mean length of hospital stay was shorter for patients within the robotic group (1.9 vs. 2.4 days; p = 0.012). Single-site robotic cholecystectomy was associated with a higher rate of wound infection (3.9 vs. 1.1%; p = 0.037) and incisional hernia (6.5 vs. 1.9%; p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy should remain the gold standard therapy for gallbladder disease. Single-site robotic cholecystectomy is an effective alternative procedure for uncomplicated benign gallbladder disease in properly selected patients. This must be carefully balanced against a high rate of surgical site infection and incisional hernia, and patients should be informed of these risks.
Authors: M Asakuma; M Hayashi; K Komeda; T Shimizu; F Hirokawa; Y Miyamoto; J Okuda; N Tanigawa Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2011-04-27 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: H Breivik; P C Borchgrevink; S M Allen; L A Rosseland; L Romundstad; E K Breivik Hals; G Kvarstein; A Stubhaug Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2008-05-16 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: S Cianci; A Rosati; V Rumolo; S Gueli Alletti; V Gallotta; L C Turco; G Corrado; G Vizzielli; A Fagotti; F Fanfani; G Scambia; S Uccella Journal: World J Surg Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Monika E Hagen; Alexandre Balaphas; Michele Podetta; Peter Rohner; Minoa K Jung; Nicolas C Buchs; Leo Buehler; Jona M Mendoza; Philippe Morel Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-10-19 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Rivfka Shenoy; Michael A Mederos; Linda Ye; Selene S Mak; Meron M Begashaw; Marika S Booth; Paul G Shekelle; Mark Wilson; William Gunnar; Melinda Maggard-Gibbons; Mark D Girgis Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2021-04-23