• 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
    • 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 Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Does the End Justify the Means?

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Does the End Justify the Means?

Jan P Kaminski, MD, MBA, Kenneth W Bueltmann, MD, Marek Rudnicki, MD, PhD. University of Illinois Metropolitan Group Hospitals.

INTRODUCTION: Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) was introduced about five years ago, and has recently gained popularity in general surgery as more surgeons have become familiar with the technique. High cost of the procedure seems to affect its widespread utilization. With its more extensive use by experienced surgeons familiar with this procedure, cost of RAC might be more controlled with similar outcomes.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) from the Health Cost Utilization Project was analyzed using HCUPnet, NIS datasets and SAS 9.2 for the years 2010 – 2011. Queries were made for RAC and LC (ICD-9 17.42+51.23, 51.23) procedures with a primary diagnosis of gallbladder disease (ICD-9 574.0-574.9, 575.0-575.9, 575.12). The NIS weighting algorithm was used for National estimates. Overall charges, costs, number of chronic conditions and lengths of stay were calculated. The NIS Z-score calculator was utilized for all statistics.

RESULTS: Total number of RAC and LC in the NIS database for years 2010 and 2011 are shown in the table. The incidence of RAC more than doubled between 2010 and 2011. Total costs for LC increased by 2.5% (p < 0.05) while total costs for RAC decreased by 14.6% (p = 0.27) between 2010 and 2011, even though RAC was still costlier than LC in 2011. The estimated cost differences between RAC and LC in 2010 and 2011 were $7,518, +54%, (p < 0.05) and $4,044, +29%, (p < 0.05). The total charge of LC increased by 8% (p < 0.05) between 2010 and 2011, while the total charge for RAC increased by 13.3% (p = 0.33). Total charge difference between RAC and LC in 2010 and 2011 were $19,719, +47%, (p < 0.05) and $24,526, +54%, (p < 0.05) respectively. There was no significant difference in the LOS between RAC and LC in either years. Interestingly, the patients undergoing RAC had an increased number of chronic conditions compared to patients undergoing LC in both 2010 and 2011.
 

  2010 2011
Procedure LC RAC LC RAC
Number 362,971 524 370,958 1084
Total Costs $13,829 $21,346* $14,180# $18,224*
Cost Difference $7,518*; 54% $4,044*; 29%
Total Charges $41,781 $61,500* $45,150#

$69,677*

Charge Difference $19,719*; 47% $24,526*; 54%
Length of Stay (days) 4.14 3.63 4.10

4.59

No of chronic conditions 3.02 3.59* 3.15# 3.96*
Legend * p < 0.05 for RAC vs LC within examined year # p < 0.05 for 2010 vs 2011

CONCLUSION: The number of RAC is increasing in the United States. Outcomes of RAC, as measured by one available indicator, LOS, are similar to LC. Cost of RAC however remains higher compared to LC although there was noticeable reduction in cost of RAC in 2011 versus 2010. It would be very interesting to continue an observation of these trends since current cost of RAC might prohibit its more widespread use among laparoscopic surgeons.

 

738

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