• 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 Single-Incision Cholecystectomy, Although a Feasible and Safe Option, Dramatically Increases Operative Time When Compared to Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Robotic Single-Incision Cholecystectomy, Although a Feasible and Safe Option, Dramatically Increases Operative Time When Compared to Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Maureen D Moore, MD, Jonathan Abelson, MD, Renee Tholey, MD, Suraj Panjwani, MBBS, Rasa Zarnegar, MD, Cheguevara Afaneh, MD. New York Presbyterian Hospital-Weill Cornell Medical Center

INTRODUCTION: Surgeon-specific outcomes data has compared standard laparoscopic versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomies. The purpose of our study was to compare perioperative outcomes between single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomies (SILC) and robotic single-incision cholecystectomies (RSILC) in patients with biliary disease.

METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 50 consecutive patients who underwent a SILC or RSILC for acute cholecystitis, biliary colic/symptomatic cholelithiasis, gallstone pancreatitis and gallbladder polyps. We compared the first 21 patients undergoing RSILC to the first 29 patient undergoing SILC from January 2010 to September 2015. A total of two surgeons experienced in robotic surgery participated in the study. Preoperative variables included demographics, body mass index (BMI), ASA score, and abdominal surgical history. Surgical variables included number of ports, total operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), conversion data, morbidity and length of stay (LOS). Our primary end-point was operative time. Our secondary end-points were morbidity and LOS.

RESULTS: Preoperative parameters were not significantly different between the two groups except for age (Table 1). Mean operative time was 51% longer in RSILC when compared to SILC (120±32 mins versus 79±35 mins, p≤0.0001). There were no significant differences in EBL, conversion rates, intraoperative, and post-operative complication rates. There was one complication in the RSILC group and two occurred in the SILC group. One patient in each group developed choledocholithiasis requiring re-admission and ERCP. The other complication was a surgical site infection, which was treated with antibiotics. The rate of additional port placement was not significantly different. Furthermore, LOS was not statistically significant (Table 2). There was a strong inverse correlation between chronologic case number and operative time for SILC, (r2=0.15; P=0.04) however not for RSILC (P=0.19). There was no difference in surgeon-specific operative times.

CONCLUSION: RSILC is both safe and feasible. However, given the significant difference in operative time compared to SILC, the robotic platform may not be cost-effective for surgeons that can adopt single-incision laparoscopic surgery. If unfamiliar with single-incision laparoscopic surgery, the robotic platform offers an additional tool in the surgeon’s armamentarium. 

Figure 1: The learning curves for robotic single incision cholecystectomy and single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Figure 1: The learning curves for robotic single incision cholecystectomy and single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy 

136

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