Comparative analysis of open, laparoscopic and robotic-assisted cholecystectomy: a literature review

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background: A cholecystectomy is one of the most common surgical procedures, primarily used to treat patients with symptomatic gallstone disease. There are three main methods for performing this surgery: open, laparoscopic, and robotic access. Currently, laparoscopic cholecystectomy is considered the gold standard for treating symptomatic cholelithiasis. However, robotic cholecystectomy represents an advancement in minimally invasive techniques. Aim of the Study: The aim of this study is to review and compare the different approaches to cholecystectomy—open, laparoscopic, and robotic—and to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of each method. Material and Methods: A literature search was conducted using publicly available databases, PubMed and Google Scholar, with the following keywords: “open cholecystectomy,” “laparoscopic cholecystectomy,” and “robotic cholecystectomy.” The search included articles published between January 2002 and March 2024. A total of 37 articles were ultimately included in this review. Results: In the analyzed publications, the approaches to cholecystectomy were compared, including open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery. Laparoscopic and robotic cholecystectomy are generally preferred over open cholecystectomy due to their minimally invasive nature, which results in faster recovery times and fewer complications. However, the choice of surgical method should be tailored to the individual patient's needs, the surgeon's expertise, and the financial implications of each technique. Conclusion: While minimally invasive techniques offer significant advantages, there remain certain clinical scenarios where open cholecystectomy is indicated and necessary. Therefore, a comprehensive evaluation of each patient's condition is crucial to determine the most appropriate surgical approach of cholecystectomy.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.