• 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 / Is Robotic Cholecystectomy Too Expensive for an Acute Care Surgery Service?

Is Robotic Cholecystectomy Too Expensive for an Acute Care Surgery Service?

Matthew S Surrusco, MD1, Joshua Farnsworth, BS2, Xian Luo-Owen, PhD2, Esther Wu, MD2, Daniel P Srikureja, MD2, Kaushik Mukherjee, MD, MSCI, FACS2. 1University of Florida School of Medicine, 2Loma Linda University School of Medicine

OBJECTIVES: To determine if the use of the surgical robot can add value to the Acute Care Surgery service at a busy academic hospital by studying OR time, length of stay, complications, and hospital costs.

METHODS: We reviewed a prospectively collected Acute Care Surgery registry at a large (>500 bed) adult university hospital over 9 months.  Cases from two acute care surgeons with privileges for open, laparoscopic, and robotic cases were included.  Operative technique (laparoscopic versus robotic) could not be randomized as trained robotic personnel are available only on weekdays.  We collected data on demographics, indication for surgery, nutritional status, comorbidities, OR time, postoperative complications, length of stay, and costs from the day of surgery until discharge.  We analyzed our data in SPSS 22 (IBM Inc., Armonk NY) and utilized Student’s T test and Chi-Square. We also performed a linear regression analysis to determine the effect of OR time, robotic surgery, and diagnosis on operating room costs and postoperative length of stay.

RESULTS: 37 laparoscopic and 14 robotic cholecystectomies were performed.  Demographic parameters (age, gender, medical comorbidities, preoperative albumin and BMI, surgical history and smoking) were comparable.  Primary diagnosis was significantly different (Chi-square 0.05), driven by more acute cholecystitis in the laparoscopic group.  0/14 robotic cases and 5/37 (13.5%, p = 0.305) laparoscopic cases were converted to open (2 for adhesions, 2 for failure to progress, and 1 for visualization of anatomy).  There was no difference in the incidence of postoperative complications. Operative time was similar (158±38 min [robot]vs. 135±62 min [lap], p = 0.125).  There was a trend toward shorter postoperative length of stay in the robotic group (1.4±1.4 days vs. 2.4±2.6 days, p = 0.087) but this was not significant even after adjusting for OR time and diagnosis.  Robotic procedures had higher unadjusted OR costs ($3490±$934 vs. $2190±$831, p < 0.001).  After adjusting for OR time and diagnosis, robotic surgery was associated with a $980 increase in costs [95%CI $648, $1310, p < 0.001]. 

CONCLUSIONS: Robotic cholecystectomy can be safely performed on an ACS service with minimal risk of conversion.  Robotic surgery is independently associated with increased OR cost, but individual hospital systems must decide if this additional cost outweighs increased robot utilization and training benefits for physicians and staff. 


Presented at the SAGES 2017 Annual Meeting in Houston, TX.

Abstract ID: 86630

Program Number: P775

Presentation Session: iPoster Session (Non CME)

Presentation Type: Poster

171

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