Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Dec 1;158(12):1303-1310.
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2023.4389.

Comparative Safety of Robotic-Assisted vs Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Affiliations

Comparative Safety of Robotic-Assisted vs Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Stanley Kalata et al. JAMA Surg. .

Erratum in

  • Error in Results.
    [No authors listed] [No authors listed] JAMA Surg. 2025 May 1;160(5):604. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2025.0539. JAMA Surg. 2025. PMID: 40105825 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

Abstract

Importance: Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is rapidly being adopted into practice, partly based on the belief that it offers specific technical and safety advantages over traditional laparoscopic surgery. Whether robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is safer than laparoscopic cholecystectomy remains unclear.

Objective: To determine the uptake of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy and to analyze its comparative safety vs laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Design, setting, and participants: This retrospective cohort study used Medicare administrative claims data for nonfederal acute care hospitals from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2019. Participants included 1 026 088 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries 66 to 99 years of age who underwent cholecystectomy with continuous Medicare coverage for 3 months before and 12 months after surgery. Data were analyzed August 17, 2022, to June 1, 2023.

Exposure: Surgical technique used to perform cholecystectomy: robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic approaches.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was rate of bile duct injury requiring definitive surgical reconstruction within 1 year after cholecystectomy. Secondary outcomes were composite outcome of bile duct injury requiring less-invasive postoperative surgical or endoscopic biliary interventions, and overall incidence of 30-day complications. Multivariable logistic analysis was performed adjusting for patient factors and clustered within hospital referral regions. An instrumental variable analysis was performed, leveraging regional variation in the adoption of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy within hospital referral regions over time, to account for potential confounding from unmeasured differences between treatment groups.

Results: A total of 1 026 088 patients (mean [SD] age, 72 [12.0] years; 53.3% women) were included in the study. The use of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy increased 37-fold from 211 of 147 341 patients (0.1%) in 2010 to 6507 of 125 211 patients (5.2%) in 2019. Compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy, robotic-assisted cholecystectomy was associated with a higher rate of bile duct injury necessitating a definitive operative repair within 1 year (0.7% vs 0.2%; relative risk [RR], 3.16 [95% CI, 2.57-3.75]). Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy was also associated with a higher rate of postoperative biliary interventions, such as endoscopic stenting (7.4% vs 6.0%; RR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.16-1.33]). There was no significant difference in overall 30-day complication rates between the 2 procedures. The instrumental variable analysis, which was designed to account for potential unmeasured differences in treatment groups, also showed that robotic-assisted cholecystectomy was associated with a higher rate of bile duct injury (0.4% vs 0.2%; RR, 1.88 [95% CI, 1.14-2.63]).

Conclusions and relevance: This cohort study's finding of significantly higher rates of bile duct injury with robotic-assisted cholecystectomy compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy suggests that the utility of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy should be reconsidered, given the existence of an already minimally invasive, predictably safe laparoscopic approach.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Kalata reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Frederick A. Coller Surgical Society during the conduct of the study. Dr Dimick reported receiving personal fees from ArborMetrix Inc outside the submitted work, and being an equity owner of ArborMetrix Inc. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure.
Figure.. Distribution of Cholecystectomy Techniques Used Among Medicare Beneficiaries by Year From 2010 Through 2019
The number of patients included each year was 147 341 for 2010; 140 100 for 2011; 136 185 for 2012; 131 329 for 2013; 127 36 for 2014; 129 614 for 2015; 129 367 for 2016; 126 494 for 2017; 124 738 for 2018; and 125 211 for 2019.

Comment in

References

    1. Childers CP, Maggard-Gibbons M. Estimation of the acquisition and operating costs for robotic surgery. JAMA. 2018;320(8):835-836. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.9219 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sheetz KH, Claflin J, Dimick JB. Trends in the adoption of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(1):e1918911-e1918911. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.18911 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sheetz KH, Dimick JB. Is it time for safeguards in the adoption of robotic surgery? JAMA. 2019;321(20):1971-1972. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.3736 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Berryhill R Jr, Jhaveri J, Yadav R, et al. . Robotic prostatectomy: a review of outcomes compared with laparoscopic and open approaches. Urology. 2008;72(1):15-23. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2007.12.038 - DOI - PubMed
    1. US Food and Drug Administration . Update: caution with robotically-assisted surgical devices in mastectomy: FDA Safety Communication. Accessed Feb 2, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/update-caution...

Publication types