• 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 vs. standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy: clinical outcomes.

Robotic vs. standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy: clinical outcomes.

P M Norwick, BS1, S Shaheen, MD1, J Blebea, MD, MBA1, N Conti2, R Heckburn1, M Zayout3, J Clements, PhD1, M Ghanem, MD1. 1Central Michigan University College of Medicine, 2Case Western University/University Hospitals Medical Center, 3Royal College of Surgeons, Ireland, Dublin

INTRODUCTION: This pilot study was aimed to identify where a patient may or may not benefit from robotic assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy, versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy to uncover the overall utility of robotic assisted procedures for this common surgical operation.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES: A total of 244 patients were included. Subjects included all patients operated upon by a single surgeon between 2013-June 2018 who met the following inclusion criteria: 1) over age 18, 2) laparoscopic and robotic cholecystectomies performed by single surgeon. We compared clinical outcomes including, OR time, length of stay (LOS), readmission to the hospital, post-op ED visit, and post-op pain between non-robotic assisted single incision (Group A) and robotic assited laparoscopic (Group B) cholecystectomies. A chi square analysis and t-test were used to compare these variables between the two groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to predict the probability of having robotic surgery using gender, age, and BMI as variables.

RESULTS: 144 patients were included in Group A and 100 in Group B. Compared with Group A, Group B was associated with shorter post-operative length of stay (mean, 0.8 vs. 1.61; p= 0.002). There was no significant difference in OR time (mean, 64.82 vs. 65.04; p= 0.945), readmissions (4.0% vs. 3.5%; p= 0.830), post-operative ED visits (7.0% vs. 7.6%; p= 0.851) or post-operative pain (13.0% vs. 21.3%; p= 0.137). Robotic cholecystectomy patients were younger (mean, 46.3 vs. 51.79; p= 0.023) and had lower BMIs (mean, 30.6 vs. 32.7; p= 0.038). There was no significant difference in gender between the two groups. Because of these differences, we conducted PSM which showed no difference between Group A and Group B regarding age, BMI, or gender and the statistical significance of LOS was maintained (mean, 0.93 vs. 1.9; p= 0.009). 

CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate that robotic assisted cholecystectomies can reduce LOS for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy, without increasing OR time. This enables surgeons to maintain OR fluency by not increasing the time it takes physicians to perform procedures. The reduced LOS would benefit both patient and hospital by decreasing risk of infection, while also reducing hopsital resource usage and cost. 


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

Abstract ID: 94074

Program Number: P668

Presentation Session: Poster Session (Non CME)

Presentation Type: Poster

View this Poster

140

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