LONG TERM FOLLOW UP AFTER PEDIATRIC SINGLE SITE ROBOTIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY

January 26, 2026 updated by: Vinci Jones, Good Samaritan Hospital Medical Center, New York

Robotic single-site cholecystectomy (RSSC) was first reported in children the PI from GSH in 2015, demonstrating the feasibility, safety, and short learning curve associated with RSSC.

The primary advantages of RSSC identified in pediatric patients include superior cosmetic outcomes, reduced postoperative pain, and a shorter learning curve for surgeons compared to SILC. These benefits contribute to its growing acceptance among pediatric surgeons.

However, despite clear short-term benefits, the need for evaluating long-term outcomes in pediatric populations remains unmet. There are currently no studies reporting long-term complications or cosmetic satisfaction following RSSC in pediatric patients.

This study will attempt to evaluate the long term outcomes after RSSC and compare them with the current gold standard, multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy, performed by the same surgeon at the same institution over a similar time frame.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Detailed Description

Robotic single-site cholecystectomy (RSSC) was first reported in children by Jones (2015), who conducted a retrospective review demonstrating the feasibility, safety, and short learning curve associated with RSSC compared to single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) in pediatric patients, which has been proven to be technically challenging [1]. Subsequently, Esposito et al. further supported these findings, showing similar safety and effectiveness of RSSC in pediatrics over a 6-year period [2]. Rothenberg et al. compared robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RC) to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in children, highlighting no significant differences in immediate postoperative complications, opioid utilization, or hospital readmissions but identifying higher costs associated with RC [3]. Kulaylat et al. similarly reported longer operative times (98 vs 79 minutes) and higher overall costs ($15,519 vs $11,197) for robotic procedures compared to laparoscopic ones, though postoperative complications and length of stay (LOS) were comparable [4].

The primary advantages of RSSC identified in pediatric patients include superior cosmetic outcomes, reduced postoperative pain, and a shorter learning curve for surgeons compared to SILC. These benefits contribute to its growing acceptance among pediatric surgeons.

However, despite clear short-term benefits, the need for evaluating long-term outcomes in pediatric populations remains unmet. There are currently no studies reporting long-term complications or cosmetic satisfaction following RSSC in pediatric patients.

In adult populations, short-term studies comparing RSSC and multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC) revealed comparable hospital stay, complication rates, seroma formation, and infection rates [5]. Hagen et al. demonstrated increased costs and higher reoperation rates for hernias with RSSC compared to MLC in adults [6]. Lurje et al. evaluated short-term cosmetic outcomes, confirming patient satisfaction with robotic surgery in adults, but no pediatric data was provided [7].

In pediatric patients, short-term follow-ups primarily emphasized operative safety, operative time, hospital stay, and immediate postoperative complications, generally showing equivalence between RC and LC with the exception of higher costs for RC [3,4].

Long-term outcomes in adult populations show conflicting reports. Marks et al. demonstrated high patient-reported cosmetic satisfaction scores at 8-year follow-up favoring SILC over conventional laparoscopic surgery [8]. Conversely, Christoffersen et al. found that most incisional hernias following SILC occurred within two years post-surgery, suggesting the need for continued monitoring [9]. Recent adult cohort studies reported comparable operative times and hospital stays between robotic and laparoscopic procedures, but with slightly higher costs associated with robotic surgery [10].

The current literature underscores significant gaps in the long-term follow-up of pediatric RSSC outcomes. To date, comprehensive evaluation of long-term hernia rates, cosmetic satisfaction, and patient-reported outcomes in children undergoing RSSC is lacking. This study aims to fill this gap by providing essential long-term data on RSSC outcomes, affirming its durability and superiority as an alternative to MLC.

Study Type

Observational

Enrollment (Actual)

150

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

    • New York
      • West Islip, New York, United States, 11795
        • Good Samaritan University Hospital

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Child
  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sampling Method

Non-Probability Sample

Study Population

pediatric patients with gall bladder disease undergoing cholecystectomy

Description

Inclusion Criteria: Those who have undergone cholecystectomy by laparoscopic or robotic surgery over the past 12 years at GSUH -

Exclusion Criteria: multiple procedures at same time

-

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

Cohorts and Interventions

Group / Cohort
laparoscopic multiport cholecystectomy
robotic single site cholecystectomy

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Time Frame
postoperative complications
Time Frame: 24-60 months
24-60 months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Time Frame
cosmetic satisfaction
Time Frame: 24-60months
24-60months

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

August 1, 2025

Primary Completion (Actual)

December 31, 2025

Study Completion (Actual)

December 31, 2025

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

January 26, 2026

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

January 26, 2026

First Posted (Actual)

February 3, 2026

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

February 3, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

January 26, 2026

Last Verified

January 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • 25-005

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

IPD Plan Description

IRB has limited patient information access only to the investigators

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Robotic Surgical Procedure

Subscribe