Table 2.

Cholecystitis

References	Study design						Outcome			Further notes
	Design	Study period	n (urgent, robotic)	n (non-urgent)	Primary study objective	Robot	Differentiated urgent vs. non-urgent	Complications conversions	Further outcomes of interest
				n (other)
Ayloo et al. [52]	R-NRC	9/2005–6/2012	45	134	MIRC vs. MILC	Da Vinci	No	1.7% CD ≥ 3; 1.7% CD < 3”	3 conversions in MILC; OT longer in MIRC
				147				no conversions
Balachandran et al. [53]	R-NRC	10/2011–7/2014	76	339	SIRC vs. MILC	Da Vinci	No	1% ileus 0.2% bile leakage	6.5% hernias in SIRC LOS shorter SIRC	All performed by 1 surgeon
				263				2.9% to MILC, 3.2% to open
Bibi et al. [33]	R-NRNC	6/2012–1/2013	31	71	Safety of SIRC	Da Vinci	No	4% CD < 3	50% of conversions due to inflammation
				–				3.9% conversions
Buzad et al. [17]	P-NRC	1/2012–5/2012	2	18	SIRC vs. SILC	Da Vinci	No	No complications	No differences in OT and costs	SILC reviewed retrospectively
				10				No conversion
Cadiére et al. [16]	R-NRNC	3/1997–2/2001	4	44	Feasibility	Da Vinci	No	25% (n = 1) CD 2		See also appendicitis
				98				no conversions
Chung et al. [29]	R -NRC	8/2013–1/2015	7	63	SILC vs. MILC	Da Vinci	No	n.d	2.8% 30 d readmission
				70				1.4% conversion to open
Daskalaki et al. [54]	R-NRNC	7/2011–2/2013	28	156	ICG Cholangio-graphy	Da Vinci	No	1% CD ≥ 3; 2.2% CD < 3	cholangiography > 94%
				–				no conversions
Gangemi et al. [28]	R- NRC	2008–2015	130	546	Risk factors for conversion	n.d	N.d	n.d
				289				0.15% (n = 1) conversions
Giulianotti et al. [15]	R-NRNC	10/2000–11/2002	7	45	Descriptive; RC vs. LC	Da Vinci	No	1.9% (n = 1) complications n.d
				123				1.9% (n = 1) conversions
Gonzalez et al. [55]	R-NRC	1/2012–9/2012	20	146	SILC vs. SIRC vs. SPIDER	Da Vinci	No	1.2% CD ≥ 3; 0.6% CD < 3	OT for SIRC longer than SILC/SPIDER
				335				No (3 additional incisions)
Honaker et al. [56]	R-NRC	3/2013–2/2014	1	17	MIRC vs. MILC	Da Vinci	No	No complications	LOS shorter MIRC
				40				No conversions
Jeong Jang et al. [57]	R-NRNC	4/2019–8/2020	2 (5)	72 (69)	Feasibility of SIRC	Da Vinci	No	1.35% CD 1		3 acute cholecystitis diagnosed intraoperatively
				–				No conversions
Kalteis et al. [58]	R-NRC	4/2002–11/2004	20	52	Safety and effectiveness	AESOP	No	1.4% CD < 3	Liberation of the surgical assistant
				72				No conversions
Konstantinidis et al. [18]	P-NRNC	3/2011–7/2011	4	41	Feasibility and effectiveness	Da Vinci	No	2.2.% CD 3b, 5.3% < CD 3	20% intraoperative gallbladder-ruptures
				–				No conversions
Kornprat et al. [19]	P-NRC	2001–2006	2	18	MIRC vs. MILC	Zeus	No	No complications	OT longer in MIRC
				26				No conversions
Kubat et al. [23]	R-NRC	5/2012–8/2013	74	76	Urgent vs. non-urgent MIRC	Da Vinci	Yes	12% complications in urgent, incl. 1.5% (n = 1) BD injury	LOS longer in urgent, overall complications + SSI no differences
				–				1.5% (n = 1) conversions
Kulaylat et al. [36]	R-NRC	1/2015–12/2018	10	69	SIRC/MIRC vs. SILC/MILC	Da Vinci	No	“No differences in complications”	OT longer in robotic, costs higher in robotic	Pediatric patients
				220				No conversions
Li et al. [42]	R-NRC	8/2013–12/2015	17	61	Safety, resources SIRC vs. MILC	Da Vinci	No	3.8% < CD 3 (20% in MILC)	1.9% conversion rate in MILC	OT, LOS and costs higher in SIRC
				367				No conversions
Mattei et al. [59]	R-NRNC	2013–?	1	19	Feasibility in pediatric patients	Da Vinci	No	20% seromas (CD < 3)	OT longer, LOS shorter
				–				No conversions
Ohmura et al. [14]	R-NRC	12/2014–3/2017	101	172	Feasibility	Soloassist RCM	No	“No device-related complications”	LOS shorter; liberation of surgical assistant	See also appendicitis and hollow organs
				848				No conversions
Rosales-Velderrain et al. [60]	P-NRNC	3/2013–5/2015	4	10	Safety, feasibility in pediatric patients	Da Vinci	No	7% (n = 1) seroma
				–				No conversions
Schertz et al. [35]	R-NRC	8/2013–4/2018	3/6	101/99	SIRC vs. MIRC	Da Vinci	No	1 enterotomy (MIRC), 2.9% hernias (SIRC)	OT, LOS in SIRC shorter
				–				Excluded
Su et al. [61]	R-NRC	2/2014–9/2015	10	41	SIRC vs. SILC	Da Vinci	No	No complications	OT in urgent longer Pain lower in SIRC
				63				No conversions
Svoboda et al. [20]	P-NRC	11/2012–2/2014	159	112	SIRC in BMI ≥ 30 vs. < 30	Da Vinci	No	0.9% (n = 1), incisional hernia	OT longer in obese patients	Inconclusive data
				–				no conversions
Tao et al. [62]	R- NRC	1/2006–2/2020	13	161	MILC vs. MIRC	Da Vinci	No	12.3% overall in RC	RC vs. LC CD 1 > , CD 2 < , CD 3 equal, no CD IV	All acute cholecystitis diagnosed intraoperatively
				441				No conversion
Vidovszky et al. [34]	P-NRNC	1/2012–1/2013	13	82	apPlicability of SIRC	Da Vinci	No	4.2% CD 3; 2.1% < CD 3	One disruption of DC 4 technical problems	5 inflammations diagnosed intraoperatively
				–				8.4%; 1 due to inflammation
Case Series Case Reports	CS/CR	2001–2021	11		Feasibility	Da Vinci (3), Microhand S (1)	No	No complications	Bustos et al. [31]; Hanisch et al. [30]; Milone et al. [32]; Yi et al. [13]
								No conversions

Only statistically significant differences listed

BMI Body mass index, CD Clavien-Dindo classification of complications [8], CR Case report, CS Case series, DC Ductus cysticus, LC laparoscopic cholecystectomy, LOS length of stay, MILC Multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy, MILC Multi-incision robotic cholecystectomy, n.d. not documented, OT Operation Time, P-NRC prospective, non-randomized, controlled, P-NRNC prospective, non-randomized, non-controlled, RC Robotic cholecystectomy, R-NRC retrospective, non-randomized, controlled, R-NRNC retrospective, non-randomized, non-controlled, RCM robotic camera mount, SI Single-Incision, SILC Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy, SIRC Single-incision robotic cholecystectomy