• 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 / ROBOTIC COMPARED TO LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY: A PROPENSITY MATCHED ANALYSIS

ROBOTIC COMPARED TO LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY: A PROPENSITY MATCHED ANALYSIS

Eric J Charles, MD, J. Hunter Mehaffey, MD, MSc, William J Kane, MD, Robert B Hawkins, MD, MSc, Carlos A Tache-Leon, MD, Zequan Yang, MD. University Of Virginia

Introduction: As robotic surgery becomes more ubiquitous, determining clinical benefit is necessary in order to justify the cost and time investment required to become proficient. The objective of this study was to determine if the use of the robot to perform cholecystectomy was justified. We hypothesized that robotic cholecystectomy would be associated with improved clinical outcomes, but also increased cost, as compared with standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods and Procedures: All patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic cholecystectomy at a single academic hospital between 2007-2017 were identified using an institutional clinical data repository. Patients were propensity score-matched 1:10 based on relevant comorbidities and demographics. Preoperative and intraoperative characteristics, clinical outcomes, and cost were compared based on operative method of cholecystectomy (robotic vs. laparoscopic). Categorical variables were analyzed by Chi-square test and continuous variables using Mann-Whitney U test.

Results: 3,255 patients underwent robotic (n=106) or laparoscopic (n=3149) cholecystectomy during the study period. Unmatched univariate analyses were performed, with no significant differences in sex, race, age, and body mass index. However, the laparoscopic group had much higher rates of medical comorbidities including type II diabetes mellitus, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, obstructive sleep apnea and gastroesophageal reflux disease. To account for differences in baseline demographics, patients were propensity score-matched (n=106 robotic, n=1060 laparoscopic) and compared. After matching, there were no significant differences in demographics or prevalence of preoperative comorbidities. Patients who underwent robotic cholecystectomy had significantly shorter lengths of stay and lower 90-day readmission rates, however operative duration was longer and hospital cost was higher compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (Table 1).

Conclusions: Robotic cholecystectomy is associated with shorter length of stay and lower readmission rate within 90-days of the index operation, but also longer operative duration and higher hospital cost compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Hospitals and surgeons need to consider the monetary and time investment required prior to pursuing robotic cholecystectomy.


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

Abstract ID: 87484

Program Number: S101

Presentation Session: Robotics 2 Session

Presentation Type: Podium

149

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