Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of robotic single-incision and traditional single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Surgeons continually strive to improve technology and patient care. One remarkable demonstration of this is the development of laparoscopic surgery. Once this proved to be a safe and reliable surgical approach, robotics seemed a logical progression of surgical technology. The aim of this project was to evaluate the utility of robotics in the context of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC).

Methods

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of robotic single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (RSILC) and traditional SILC performed by a single surgeon at our institution from July 2010 to August 2013 was queried. All consecutive patients undergoing RSILC and SILC during this time period were included. Primary outcomes include conversion rate and operative time. Secondary outcomes include length of stay, duration of narcotic use, time to independent performance of daily activities and cost. Categorical variables were evaluated using Chi-square analysis and continuous variables using t test or Wilcoxon’s rank test.

Results

Thirty-eight patients underwent RSILC and 44 underwent SILC. BMI was higher in the RSILC group, and the number of patients with prior abdominal surgeries was higher in the SILC group. Otherwise, demographics were similar between the two groups. There was no difference in conversion rate between RSILC and SILC (8 vs 11 %, p = 0.60). Mean operative time for RSILC was significantly greater compared with SILC (98 vs 68 min, p < 0.0001). RSILC was associated with a longer duration of narcotic use (2.3 vs 1.7 days, p = 0.0019) and time to independent performance of daily activities (4 vs 2.3 days, p < 0.0001). Total cost is greater in RSILC ($8961 vs $5379, p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

While RSILC can be safely performed, it is associated with longer operative times and greater cost.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Roberts KE, Solomon D, Duffy AJ, Bell RL (2010) Sincle-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a surgeon’s initial experience with 56 consecutive cases and a review of the literature. J Gastrointest Surg 14:506–510

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gangl O, Hofer W, Tomaselli F, Sautner T, Függer R (2011) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC): a matched-pair analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 396:819–824

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Joseph S, Moore BT, Sorensen GB, Earley JW, Tang F, Jones P, Brown KM (2011) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparison with the gold standard. Surg Endosc 25:3008–3015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Marks JM, Phillips MS, Tacchino R, Roberts K, Onders R, DeNoto G, Gecelter G, Rubach E, Rivas H, Islam A, Soper N, Paraskeva P, Rosemurgy A, Ross S, Shah S (2013) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with improved cosmesis scoring at the cost of significantly higher hernia rates: 1-year results of a prospective randomized, multicenter, single-blinded trial of traditional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg 216:1037–1048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Aprea G, Coppola BE, Guida F, Masone S, Persico G (2011) Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) versus classic video-laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized prospective study. J Surg Res 166:109–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bucher P, Pugin F, Buchs NC, Ostermann S, Morel P (2011) Randomized clinical trial of laparoendoscopic single-site versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 98:1695–1702

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bresadola F, Pasqualucci A, Donini A, Chiarandini P, Anania G, Terosu G, Sistu MA, Pasetto A (1999) Elective transumbilical compared with standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Eur J Surg 165:29–34

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tsimoyiannis EC, Tsimogiannis KE, Pappas-Gogos G, Farantos C, Benetatos N, Mavridou P, Manataki A (2010) Different pain scores in single transumbilical incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled study. Surg Endosc 24:1842–1848

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Liric MM, Califano AD, Angelini P, Corcione F (2011) Laparoendoscopic single site cholecystectomy versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a pilot randomized trial. Am J Surg 202:45–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Konstantinidis KM, Hirides P, Hirides S, Chrysocheris P, Georgiou M (2012) Cholecystectomy using a novel Single-Site® robotic platform: early experience from 45 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc 26:2687–2694

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kroh M, El-Hayek K, Rosenblatt S, Chand B, Escobar P, Kaouk J, Chalikonda S (2011) First human surgery with a novel single-port robotic system: cholecystectomy using the da Vinci Single-Site platform. Surg Endosc 25:3566–3573

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Spinoglio G, Lenti LM, Maglione V, Lucido FS, Priora F, Bianchi PP, Grosso F, Quarati R (2012) Single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC) versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC): comparison of learning curves. First European experience. Surg Endosc 26:1648–1655

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wren SM, Curet MJ (2011) Single-port robotic cholecystectomy. Results from a First human use clinical study of the new da Vinci single-site surgical platform. Arch Surg 146:1122–1127

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gonzalez AM, Rabaza JR, Donkor C, Romero RJ, Kosanovic R, Verdeja JC (2013) Single-incision cholecystectomy: a comparative study of standard laparoscopic, robotic, and SPIDER platforms. Surg Endosc. doi:10.1007/s00464-013-3105-2

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Dorothy Wakefield, MS, graciously assisted with statistical analysis.

Disclosures

Drs. Monica Gustafson, Tariq Lescouflair, Randall Kimball and Ibrahim Daoud, have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Saint Francis Hospital and Medical Center, 114 Woodland St., Hartford, CT, 06105, USA

    Monica Gustafson & Ibrahim Daoud

  2. Department of Surgery, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT, USA

    Tariq Lescouflair

  3. Saratoga Center for General and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Saratoga Springs, NY, USA

    Randall Kimball

Authors
  1. Monica Gustafson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tariq Lescouflair
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Randall Kimball
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ibrahim Daoud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monica Gustafson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gustafson, M., Lescouflair, T., Kimball, R. et al. A comparison of robotic single-incision and traditional single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 30, 2276–2280 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4223-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4223-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation