Minimally Invasive Single-Site Cholecystectomy in Obese Patients: Laparoscopic vs. Robotic

ArtiSential® laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus singlefulcrum laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Which minimally invasive surgery is better?

Backgrounds/Aims

In recent years, many minimally invasive techniques have been introduced to reduce the number of ports in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), offering benefits such as reduced postoperative pain and improved cosmetic outcomes. ArtiSential® is a new multi-degree-of-freedom articulating laparoscopic instrument that incorporates the ergonomic features of robotic surgery, potentially overcoming the spatial limitations of laparoscopic surgery. ArtiSential® LC can be performed using only two ports. This study aims to compare the surgical outcomes of ArtiSential® LC with those of single-fulcrum LC.

Methods

This retrospective study compared ArtiSential® LC and single-fulcrum LC among LCs performed for gallbladder (GB) stones at the same center, analyzing the basic characteristics of patients; intraoperative outcomes, such as operative time, estimated blood loss, and intraoperative GB rupture; and postoperative outcomes, such as length of hospital stay, incidence of postoperative complications, and postoperative pain.

Results

A total of 88 and 63 patients underwent ArtiSential® LC and single-fulcrum LC for GB stones, respectively. Analysis showed that ArtiSential® LC resulted in significantly fewer cases of surgeries longer than 60 minutes (30 vs. 35 min, p = 0.009) and intraoperative GB ruptures (2 vs. 10, p = 0.007). In terms of postoperative outcomes, ArtiSential® LC showed better results in the respective visual analog scale (VAS) scores immediately after surgery (2.59 vs. 3.73, p < 0.001), and before discharge (1.44 vs. 2.02, p = 0.01).

Conclusions

ArtiSential® LC showed better results in terms of surgical outcomes, especially postoperative pain. Thus, ArtiSential® LC is considered the better option for patients, compared to single-fulcrum LC.

Single-port robotic versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Previous studies have compared single-port robotic cholecystectomy (SPRC) to single-incision laparoscopic (SILC). However, there is not a systematic review and meta-analysis in patient with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 even though higher BMI is a risk factor for gallstone disease, a common indication for cholecystectomy. PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Library were searched for related literature. Studies and data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Inverse variances weighted mean differences (WMD) with random effects model were used for continues values and odds ratios (OR) with random effects model using the Mantel-Haenszel's formula were used for dichotomous value. Heterogeneity using Higgins I2 and p values were calculated. Sensitivity analysis was performed for operative duration and intraoperative complications. In this meta-analysis, six studies involving a total of 734 patients examined SPRC and SILC. The analysis revealed a statistically significant increase in operative duration for SPRC compared to SILC, with a weighted mean difference of 26.67 min (95% CI 14.99, 38.34; I2 = 93%; Pheterogeneity < 0.00001; Poverall < 0.00001). Regarding conversion to multi-port cholecystectomy (MC), no statistically significant difference was found, yielding an odds ratio of 0.94 (95% CI 0.36, 2.45; I2 = 0%; Pheterogeneity = 0.78; Poverall = 0.89). Intra-operative blood loss showed non-significant differences, with a weighted mean difference of - 16.76 ml (95% CI - 48.56, 15.03; I2 = 78%; Pheterogeneity = 0.03; Poverall = 0.30). Length of hospitalization was significantly reduced by approximately half a day for SPRC compared to SILC, with a weighted mean difference of - 0.52 days (95% CI - 0.89, - 0.14; I2 = 0%; Pheterogeneity = 0.52; Poverall = 0.007). Intra-operative complications did not differ significantly between the techniques, resulting in an odds ratio of 0.59 (95% CI 0.19, 1.81; I2 = 70%; Pheterogeneity = 0.04; Poverall = 0.36). Finally, two studies evaluated bile leak rates, concluding no significant difference with an odds ratio of 0.86 (95% CI 0.39, 1.88; I2 = 23%; Pheterogeneity = 0.25; Poverall = 0.70). Sensitivity analyses indicated that no single study unduly influenced the results for operative duration, while one study was identified as a source of heterogeneity in intra-operative complications. SPRC is associated with longer operative duration, but shorter length of hospitalization in patients with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2, compared to laparoscopic. Future studies should aim to examine incisional hernias rates as well as determine the long-term outcomes. PROSPERO registration: CRD42024602514.

The Influence of Obesity on Cholecystectomy Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Laparoscopic and Open Approaches

This systematic review evaluates the impact of obesity on the outcomes of laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy, analyzing data from five key studies. The review explores differences in operative times, complication rates, conversion rates, and recovery times among obese patients undergoing these surgical procedures. The findings indicate that while laparoscopic cholecystectomy in obese patients tends to require longer operative times, it does not significantly increase complication rates compared to open cholecystectomy. However, the risk of conversion to open surgery is modestly elevated. The review highlights the necessity for surgical guidelines to adapt to the challenges posed by obesity, recommending advanced training and innovative technologies to improve surgical outcomes. Limitations such as study design heterogeneity and variability in defining obesity underscore the need for further research. This review contributes to optimizing surgical care strategies and improving patient outcomes in the growing demographic of obese surgical patients.

Robotic cholecystectomy with a new port placement-is it really beneficial?

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the effect of robotic cholecystectomy (RC) with a new port placement versus that of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) on surgical pain and postoperative complications.

METHODS

We prospectively collected medical data from 100 patients who underwent cholecystectomy (RC = 50, LC = 50) from March 2017 to January 2019. In the RC group, ports were positioned in the left-lower, mid-lower, and umbilical areas. In the LC group, ports were placed in the xiphoid, right-upper, and umbilical areas.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics were similar between the two groups. Pain levels at 2, 4, and 8 h were significantly lower in the RC group than in the LC group (p = 0.04, 0.02, and 0.02, respectively). The LC group received more analgesics after surgery (RC = 0.3 ± 0.5 vs. LC = 0.7 ± 0.9, p = 0.03). However, the total medical cost was significantly higher in the RC group (RC = 7355.2 ± 1270.9 USD vs. LC = 4814.8 ± 1572.5 USD, p < 0.01). Mean operative time, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Regardless of the surgical procedure, postoperative complications were similar. RC with the new port placement can be recommended for patients who are more concerned about postoperative pain, incision, and hospital stay than surgical cost.