{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,2]],"date-time":"2026-09-02T12:18:19Z","timestamp":1788351499072,"version":"build-2803163510"},"reference-count":18,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"5","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,1]],"date-time":"2026-06-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1780272000000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,1]],"date-time":"2026-06-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1780272000000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Updates Surg"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026,9]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:p>\n                    Minimally invasive techniques, particularly laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC), are now the mainstays in the surgical management of gallbladder diseases. Both techniques are widely used, but there is a paucity of comparative studies with regards to surgical efficacy, cost, and patient recovery time. This meta-analysis aims to compare their key differences to improve clinical practice and outcomes. A PRISMA-compliant systematic review was conducted of peer-reviewed comparative studies evaluating LC versus RAC for benign gallbladder disease. Outcomes included conversion to open surgery, operative time, complication rates, postoperative length of stay, postoperative pain, and cost-effectiveness. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed where appropriate.Six studies were included. RAC was associated with significantly lower odds of conversion to open surgery than LC (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01\u20130.94;\n                    <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\n                    \u2009=\u20090.04), although this finding was based on sparse retrospective data. RAC was associated with longer operative time in the available comparative data. No significant difference was found in postoperative length of stay (MD 0.38\u00a0days, 95% CI \u22120.06 to 0.82;\n                    <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\n                    \u2009=\u20090.09) or overall complication rates (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.04\u20137.79;\n                    <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\n                    \u2009=\u20090.67). Pain outcomes were reported using non-standardized measures, limiting firm interpretation. Most studies suggested RAC was more costly than LC, although findings varied by institutional setting and costing method. RAC may reduce conversion to open surgery in selected settings, but broader clinical benefit over LC remains uncertain. Overall, LC remains the more established and economically justifiable approach for most patients undergoing cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease, while further high-quality prospective studies are needed to clarify the role of RAC.\n                  <\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1007\/s13304-026-02671-1","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,1]],"date-time":"2026-06-01T08:37:30Z","timestamp":1780303050000},"page":"2039-2048","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":2,"title":["Cutting-edge choices: comparative outcomes of laparoscopic vs robotic cholecystectomy\u2014a systematic review"],"prefix":"10.1007","volume":"78","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0009-0000-4711-2278","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"En Qing","family":"Lim","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Zeeshan","family":"Razzaq","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,1]]},"reference":[{"issue":"1","key":"2671_CR1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"242","DOI":"10.1007\/s11701-024-01989-5","volume":"18","author":"LM Delgado","year":"2024","unstructured":"Delgado LM, Pompeu BF, Pasqualotto E, Magalh\u00e3es CM, Oliveira AFM, Kato BK et al (2024) Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Robot Surg 18(1):242. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11701-024-01989-5","journal-title":"J Robot Surg"},{"issue":"6","key":"2671_CR2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1213","DOI":"10.1016\/j.amjsurg.2019.08.014","volume":"218","author":"B Pokala","year":"2019","unstructured":"Pokala B, Flores L, Armijo PR, Kothari V, Oleynikov D (2019) Robot-assisted cholecystectomy is a safe but costly approach: a national database review. Am J Surg 218(6):1213\u20131218. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.amjsurg.2019.08.014","journal-title":"Am J Surg"},{"issue":"12","key":"2671_CR3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1303","DOI":"10.1001\/jamasurg.2023.4389","volume":"158","author":"S Kalata","year":"2023","unstructured":"Kalata S, Thumma JR, Norton EC, Dimick JB, Sheetz KH (2023) Comparative safety of robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JAMA Surg 158(12):1303\u20131310. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1001\/jamasurg.2023.4389","journal-title":"JAMA Surg"},{"issue":"6","key":"2671_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1323","DOI":"10.1016\/j.surg.2023.01.017","volume":"173","author":"A Singh","year":"2023","unstructured":"Singh A, Panse NS, Prasath V, Arjani S, Chokshi RJ (2023) Cost-effectiveness analysis of robotic cholecystectomy in the treatment of benign gallbladder disease. Surgery 173(6):1323\u20131328. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.surg.2023.01.017","journal-title":"Surgery"},{"key":"2671_CR5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.7759\/cureus.73767","author":"P Tawde","year":"2024","unstructured":"Tawde P, John N, Farah S, Mehdi D, Stuart D (2024) Comparison of da Vinci robotic cholecystectomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of postoperative outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Cureus. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.7759\/cureus.73767","journal-title":"Cureus"},{"key":"2671_CR6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s11701-024-02167-3","author":"K Kossenas","year":"2025","unstructured":"Kossenas K, Kalomoiris D, Georgopoulos F (2025) Single-port robotic versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with BMI \u2265 25 kg\/m2: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Robot Surg. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11701-024-02167-3","journal-title":"J Robot Surg"},{"issue":"1","key":"2671_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"267","DOI":"10.1007\/s00464-015-4203-0","volume":"30","author":"K Bedeir","year":"2016","unstructured":"Bedeir K, Mann A, Youssef Y (2016) Robotic single-site versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: which is cheaper? A cost report and analysis. Surg Endosc 30(1):267\u2013272. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00464-015-4203-0","journal-title":"Surg Endosc"},{"key":"2671_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"n71","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.n71","volume":"372","author":"MJ Page","year":"2021","unstructured":"Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmj.n71","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"key":"2671_CR9","unstructured":"Wells G, Shea B, O\u2019Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. (2000) The Newcastle\u2013Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of non-randomized studies in meta-analysis [Internet]. Ottawa: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute [cited 2024\/07\/07]. Available from: http:\/\/www.ohri.ca\/programs\/clinical_epidemiology\/oxford.asp"},{"issue":"4","key":"2671_CR10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"201","DOI":"10.1016\/j.kjms.2017.01.010","volume":"33","author":"YP Li","year":"2017","unstructured":"Li YP, Wang SN, Lee KT (2017) Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparative study of medical resource utilization and clinical outcomes. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 33(4):201\u2013206. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.kjms.2017.01.010","journal-title":"Kaohsiung J Med Sci"},{"issue":"5","key":"2671_CR11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2187","DOI":"10.1007\/s11701-023-01632-9","volume":"17","author":"AO Rifai","year":"2023","unstructured":"Rifai AO, Rembetski EM, Stutts LC, Mazurek ZD, Yeh JL, Rifai K et al (2023) Retrospective analysis of operative time and time to discharge for laparoscopic vs robotic approaches to appendectomy and cholecystectomy. J Robot Surg 17(5):2187\u20132193. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11701-023-01632-9","journal-title":"J Robot Surg"},{"issue":"5","key":"2671_CR12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1482","DOI":"10.1007\/s00464-018-6430-7","volume":"33","author":"LF Grochola","year":"2019","unstructured":"Grochola LF, Soll C, Zehnder A, Wyss R, Herzog P, Breitenstein S (2019) Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic single-incision cholecystectomy: results of a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 33(5):1482\u20131490. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00464-018-6430-7","journal-title":"Surg Endosc"},{"key":"2671_CR13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s00464-024-11162-6","author":"MYM Chee","year":"2024","unstructured":"Chee MYM, Wu AGR, Fong KY, Yew A, Koh YX (2024) Robotic, laparoscopic, and open surgery for gallbladder cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00464-024-11162-6","journal-title":"Surg Endosc"},{"issue":"1","key":"2671_CR14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"73","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jamcollsurg.2010.02.050","volume":"211","author":"MM Murphy","year":"2010","unstructured":"Murphy MM, Ng SC, Simons JP, Csikesz NG, Shah SA, Tseng JF (2010) Predictors of major complications after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: surgeon, hospital, or patient? J Am Coll Surg 211(1):73\u201380. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jamcollsurg.2010.02.050","journal-title":"J Am Coll Surg"},{"key":"2671_CR15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1001\/jamasurg.2014.2339","author":"SN Zafar","year":"2015","unstructured":"Zafar SN, Obirieze A, Cornwell EE (2015) Optimal time for early laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. JAMA Surg. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1001\/jamasurg.2014.2339","journal-title":"JAMA Surg"},{"issue":"2","key":"2671_CR16","first-page":"169","volume":"9","author":"D Stefanidis","year":"2005","unstructured":"Stefanidis D, Bingener J, Richards M (2005) Gangrenous cholecystitis in the decade before and after the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JSLS. 9(2):169","journal-title":"JSLS."},{"key":"2671_CR17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1186\/s13017-023-00521-8","author":"SM Wren","year":"2023","unstructured":"Wren SM, Lee SH, Liu Y, Campbell S (2023) A retrospective study of laparoscopic, robotic-assisted, and open emergent\/urgent cholecystectomy based on the PINC AI Healthcare Database. World J Emerg Surg. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s13017-023-00521-8","journal-title":"World J Emerg Surg"},{"key":"2671_CR18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s00464-016-5134-0","author":"DS Strosberg","year":"2017","unstructured":"Strosberg DS, Nguyen MC, Narula VK (2017) A retrospective comparison of robotic cholecystectomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: operative outcomes and cost analysis. Surg Endosc. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00464-016-5134-0","journal-title":"Surg Endosc"}],"container-title":["Updates in Surgery"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s13304-026-02671-1.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s13304-026-02671-1","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s13304-026-02671-1.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,2]],"date-time":"2026-09-02T11:42:04Z","timestamp":1788349324000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/10.1007\/s13304-026-02671-1"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,1]]},"references-count":18,"journal-issue":{"issue":"5","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026,9]]}},"alternative-id":["2671"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s13304-026-02671-1","relation":{},"ISSN":["2038-131X","2038-3312"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2038-131X","type":"print"},{"value":"2038-3312","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,1]]},"assertion":[{"value":"12 February 2025","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"8 April 2026","order":2,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"1 June 2026","order":3,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"All authors declare no conflicts of interest.","order":1,"name":"Ethics","label":"Conflict of interest","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"This systematic review has been registered under PROSPERO number CRD42024626114. Review protocol accessible at:\n                      \n                      .","order":2,"name":"Ethics","label":"Ethical approval","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}}]}}