Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 195

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Robotic-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Outcome and Cost Analyses of a Case-matched Control Study

Breitenstein, Stefan, Nocito, Antonio, Puhan, Milo, Held, Ulrike, Weber, Markus, Clavien, Pierre-Alain·2008·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare safety and costs of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. BACKGROUND: Technical benefits of robotic-assisted surgery are well documented. However, pressure is currently applied to decrease costs, leading to restriction of development, and implementation of new technologies. So far, no convincing data are available comparing outcome or costs between computer assisted and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS: A prospective case-matched study was conducted on 50 consecutive patients, who underwent robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (Da Vinci Robot, Intuitive Surgical) between December 2004 and February 2006. These patients were matched 1:1 to 50 patients with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy, according to age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, histology, and surgical experience. Endpoints were complications after surgery (mean follow-up of 12.3 months [SD 1.2]), conversion rates, operative time, and hospital costs (ClinicalTrial.gov ID: NCT00562900). RESULTS: No minor, but 1 major complication occurred in each group (2%). No conversion to open surgery was needed in either group. Operation time (skin-to-skin, 55 minutes vs. 50 minutes, P < 0.85) and hospital stay (2.6 days vs. 2.8 days) were similar. Overall hospital costs were significantly higher for robotic-assisted cholecystectomy $7985.4 (SD 1760.9) versus $6255.3 (SD 1956.4), P < 0.001, with a raw difference of $1730.1(95% CI 991.4-2468.7) and a difference adjusted for confounders of $1606.4 (95% CI 1076.7-2136.2). This difference was mainly related to the amortization and consumables of the robotic system. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is safe and, therefore, a valuable approach. Costs of robots, however, are high and do not justify the use of this technology considering the lack of benefits for patients. A reduction of acquisition and maintenance costs for the robotic system is a prerequisite for large-scale adoption and implementation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/sla.0b013e318172501f

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 195

Metadata

Authors
Breitenstein, S., Nocito, A., Puhan, M., Held, U., Weber, M., & Clavien, P.-A.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2008-06
Volume
247
Issue
6
Pages
987-993
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2056305540
Cited by
195
References
1
FWCI
10.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Robotic-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Outcome and Cost Analyses of a Case-matched Control Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/sla.0b013e318172501f
The paper
Breitenstein, S., Nocito, A., Puhan, M., Held, U., Weber, M., & Clavien, P.-A. (2008). Robotic-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Outcome and Cost Analyses of a Case-matched Control Study. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e318172501f

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.