• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
  • Search
    • Search All SAGES Content
    • Search SAGES Guidelines
    • Search the Video Library
    • Search the Image Library
    • Search the Abstracts Archive
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • Search
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2026 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
  • Opportunities
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs and Humanitarian Efforts
  • OWLS/FLS
You are here: Home / Abstracts / A Comparison of Robotic Single Incision and Traditional Single Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

A Comparison of Robotic Single Incision and Traditional Single Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Tariq Lescouflair, MD, Monica Gustafson, MD, Ibrahim Daoud, MD, FACS. Department of Minimally Invasive Surgery, St. Francis Hospital and Medical Center; Hartford, CT.

Introduction: Once laparoscopy proved to be a safe and reliable method of performing many abdominal surgical procedures, surgeons have continued to advanced technology and develop less invasive methods for performing common surgical procedures. This trend ultimately led to the invention of robotic surgery, which began in ernest in the 1990s. In recent years, robotic surgery has gained popularity, with many urologic, gynecologic and general surgical procedures exploring its many advantages. The aim of this project is to evaluate the utility of robotics in the context of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC).

Methods: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of both robotic single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (RSILC) and traditional SILC was performed. The database includes all consecutive RSILC and SILC performed by a single surgeon at our institution from August 2010 to the present date. All consecutive RSILC patients were matched with patients of similar age, gender, ASA, and BMI undergoing SILC. Outcomes and cost were compared between the two groups. Primary outcomes include rate of conversion, defined by the use of any additional ports and operative time. Secondary outcomes include duration of narcotic use, time to independent performance of daily activities and cost. Categorical variables were evaluated using chi square analysis and continuous variables using t-test.
Results: 41 patients undergoing RSILC and 41 patients undergoing SILC included in the analysis. Demographics, including age, gender, ASA and BMI were similar. There was no difference in conversion rate between RSILC and SILC (9 vs 11%, p = 0.60). Mean operative time for RSILC was significantly greater compared to SILC (96.7 vs 65.2 min, p = 4.8×10^-6). RSILC was associated with a slightly longer duration of narcotic use (1.6 vs 2.4 days, p = 0.0068) and time to independent performance of daily activities (2.3 vs 4 days, p = 8.5×10^-6). Cost is higher but does not seem to be significantly so in RSILC ($3673 vs $7518, p = 0.056)

Discussion: Conversion rates are similar in RSILC and SILC suggesting that technical difficulty is comparable. Narcotic use and time to restoration of independent activity seem to be slightly higher in the RSILC group. The mean cost was higher in the RSILC group, however this did not seem to be a statistically significant difference. This may be due in part to specialized equipment required for the robotic platform as well as increased operative time.
 

  Conversion  Narcotic Use Independent Cost
SILC 9% 1.6d 2.3d $3673
RSILC 11% 2.4d 4d $7518
p value 0.60 4.8 X10-6 8.5 x 10-6 0.056

 

206

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • Click to share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
  • Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky

Related


sages_adbutler_leaderboard

Hours & Info

11300 West Olympic Blvd, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90064

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2025 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals