Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard for the treatment of symptomatic gallstones, acute cholecystitis, and acute gallstone pancreatitis. In recent years, the development and diffusion of robotic surgery have provided surgeons with the opportunity to apply this innovative approach to cholecystectomy, yielding interesting results. However, as with any new surgical technique, robotic cholecystectomy (RC) has met with skepticism within the surgical community. Beyond the understandable concerns regarding increased costs, some authors have claimed that RC is associated with a higher complication rate compared to LC. We reviewed the existing literature on this subject, discussing the limitations and strengths of the most significant publications and critically analyzing them. The analysis of the literature indicates that RC is safe and effective, with no definitive evidence of its inferiority compared to LC. Some of the published papers are of low quality and biased, even with significant sample sizes. Furthermore, we believe that comparing an established technique like LC with a new and not yet standardized one such as RC is somewhat illogical. RC represents a significant advance in minimally invasive surgery and should be viewed as an opportunity to familiarize oneself with the robotic device and to enhance the surgeon’s skills in preparation for more complex robotic operations. The robotic approach can be beneficial in selected cases of cholecystectomy where fine dissection is required. With further reductions in costs, RC could become the future gold standard for benign gallbladder disorders.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard for the treatment of symptomatic gallstones, acute cholecystitis, and acute gallstone pancreatitis. In recent years, the development and diffusion of robotic surgery have provided surgeons with the opportunity to apply this innovative approach to cholecystectomy, yielding interesting results. However, as with any new surgical technique, robotic cholecystectomy (RC) has met with skepticism within the surgical community. Beyond the understandable concerns regarding increased costs, some authors have claimed that RC is associated with a higher complication rate compared to LC. We reviewed the existing literature on this subject, discussing the limitations and strengths of the most significant publications and critically analyzing them. The analysis of the literature indicates that RC is safe and effective, with no definitive evidence of its inferiority compared to LC. Some of the published papers are of low quality and biased, even with significant sample sizes. Furthermore, we believe that comparing an established technique like LC with a new and not yet standardized one such as RC is somewhat illogical. RC represents a significant advance in minimally invasive surgery and should be viewed as an opportunity to familiarize oneself with the robotic device and to enhance the surgeon’s skills in preparation for more complex robotic operations. The robotic approach can be beneficial in selected cases of cholecystectomy where fine dissection is required. With further reductions in costs, RC could become the future gold standard for benign gallbladder disorders.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard for the treatment of symptomatic gallstones, acute cholecystitis, and acute gallstone pancreatitis. In recent years, the development and diffusion of robotic surgery have provided surgeons with the opportunity to apply this innovative approach to cholecystectomy, yielding interesting results. However, as with any new surgical technique, robotic cholecystectomy (RC) has met with skepticism within the surgical community. Beyond the understandable concerns regarding increased costs, some authors have claimed that RC is associated with a higher complication rate compared to LC. We reviewed the existing literature on this subject, discussing the limitations and strengths of the most significant publications and critically analyzing them. The analysis of the literature indicates that RC is safe and effective, with no definitive evidence of its inferiority compared to LC. Some of the published papers are of low quality and biased, even with significant sample sizes. Furthermore, we believe that comparing an established technique like LC with a new and not yet standardized one such as RC is somewhat illogical. RC represents a significant advance in minimally invasive surgery and should be viewed as an opportunity to familiarize oneself with the robotic device and to enhance the surgeon’s skills in preparation for more complex robotic operations. The robotic approach can be beneficial in selected cases of cholecystectomy where fine dissection is required. With further reductions in costs, RC could become the future gold standard for benign gallbladder disorders.

Background: s/Aims: The standard treatment for acute cholecystitis, biliary pancreatitis and intractable biliary colics (“hot gallbladder”) is emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). This paper aims to identify the prognostic factors and create statistical models to predict the outcomes of emergency LC for “hot gallbladder.” Methods: A prospective observational cohort study was conducted on 466 patients having an emergency LC in 17 months. Primary endpoint was “suboptimal treatment,” defined as the use of escape strategies due to the impossibility to complete the LC. Secondary endpoints were postoperative morbidity and length of postoperative stay. Results: About 10% of patients had a “suboptimal treatment” predicted by age and low albumin. Postop morbidity was 17.2%, predicted by age, admission day, and male sex. Postoperative length of stay was correlated to age, low albumin, and delayed surgery. Conclusions Several predictive prognostic factors were found to be related to poor emergency LC outcomes. These can be useful in the decision-making process and to inform patients of risks and benefits of an emergency vs. delayed LC for hot gallbladder.