Robotic versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Cholecystitis: Precision Meets Tradition – A Review of Surgical Techniques: A Meta-analysis

Introduction: Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RC) is used as a treatment for cholecystitis because it has advantages similar to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). This study aims to compare (RC) and (LC) in many aspects to see which one would give better outcomes to the patients. Methods: A systemic literature search was conducted on 210 articles using PubMed and Web of Science as databases. Nine articles were identified after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results: The analysis showed that (RC) was superior to (LC) in multiple aspects such as total surgery time (mean difference [MD]: 4.48 [0.02, 8.95] with 95% confidence interval [CI], P = 0.05), bile spillage (odds ratio [OR]: 0.26 [0.14, 0.48] with 95% CI, P < 0.0001), length of post-operative hospital stay (MD: −1.80 [−2.76, −0.83] with 95% CI, P = 0.0003), conversion rate (OR: 0.36 [0.16, 0.81] with 95% CI, P = 0.01) and serious complication (OR: 1.09 [1.04, 1.14] with 95% CI, P < 0.0001). Other results were statistically insignificant which are biliary intervention (OR: 1.02 [0.57, 1.84] with 95% CI, P = 0.95), estimated blood loss (MD: −17.78 [−40.61, 5.05] with 95% CI, P = 0.13), 30 days readmission (OR: 0.66 [0.27, 1.61] with 95% CI, P = 0.36), analog pain scale (Visual Analogue Scale) (MD: −0.92 [−2.78, 0.94] with 95% CI, P = 0.33), post-operative complication (OR: 0.82 [0.52, 1.30] with 95% CI, P = 0.41). Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests that robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RC) offers advantages over LC, including shorter hospital stays, lower conversion rates and fewer complications. However, no significant differences were found in biliary intervention, blood loss and readmission rates. Limitations include cost concerns, small sample sizes and study variability. Future research should incorporate larger datasets and high-quality RCTs to strengthen the evidence comparing (RC) and (LC).