Krosch, Tara C.

Background: Whether robot-assisted cholecystectomy reduces bile duct injury compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy remains uncertain because prior studies have inadequately accounted for disease severity and have rarely classified injury severity using standardized criteria. This study compared perioperative outcomes after robot-assisted and laparoscopic cholecystectomy across a large healthcare system while adjusting for operative complexity. Study Design: Adults undergoing robot-assisted or laparoscopic cholecystectomy within the Mayo Clinic Enterprise (2014–2025) were retrospectively evaluated. Propensity score weighting adjusted for demographics, surgeon case volume, learning curve, and disease severity using the Tokyo Guidelines and Parkland grading system in patients with acute cholecystitis. The primary outcome was bile duct injury; secondary outcomes included general and procedure-specific complications. Results: Among 23,513 patients (19,998 laparoscopic; 3,515 robotic), robot-assisted cholecystectomy was used more frequently for Parkland grade ≥3 disease. Overall, 227 bile duct injuries occurred (204 laparoscopic; 23 robotic), corresponding to absolute risks of 1.02% and 0.65%, respectively (absolute risk difference −0.37%, 95% CI −0.72% to −0.02%; number needed to treat, 273). Robot-assisted cholecystectomy was associated with lower odds of conversion to open surgery, 30-day readmission, and mortality, shorter hospital stay (β −0.56, 95% CI −0.66 to −0.45; P<0.001), and a 5-minute longer median operative time. In acute cholecystitis, robot-assisted cholecystectomy was associated with lower adjusted odds of bile duct injury (aOR 0.29, 95% CI 0.07–0.78; P=0.011). Conclusions: After adjustment for disease severity and surgeon-related factors, robot-assisted cholecystectomy was associated with lower odds of bile duct injury in acute cholecystitis and improved perioperative outcomes, including shorter hospitalization and lower conversion rates, despite greater use in more complex cases.

As modern medicine offers novel surgical therapies for conditions simple and complex, the proper resource allocation of operating rooms, surgical staff and supporting services is becoming increasingly important for healthcare organisations. Surgical services are one of the most essential parts of any healthcare system, substantially influencing patient choice of healthcare services. These services are typically the centre for revenue but also impart considerable costs. Given the complexity of surgical schedule planning, expectations of high reliability and demand on resources, many healthcare organisations have resorted to using a static block schedule based on historic utilisation patterns. This is based on the dogma that surgical schedules are not predictable, surgical blocks are stable, and surgical yield has no direct correlation with outpatient schedules. Here we share our two-year experience with a Surgical Predictor Tool using our surgical practice management principles and the cost-effective use of these means to meet the needs of patients and our surgical staff in an integrated community health system.