The evolution of robotic bariatric surgery

Costs of Robotic and Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery: A Retrospective Propensity Score-matched Analysis

PURPOSE

Robotic bariatric surgery has not shown significant advantages compared to laparoscopy, yet costs remain a major concern. The aim of our study was to assess costs of robotic and laparoscopic bariatric surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively collected data of all patients who underwent either robotic or laparoscopic bariatric surgery at our institution. We retrieved demographics, clinical characteristics, postoperative data, and costs using a bottom-up approach. The primary endpoint was hospital costs in the robotic and laparoscopic groups. Data was analyzed using a propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Out of the total 122 patients enrolled in the study, 42 were subsequently chosen based on propensity scores, with 21 patients allocated to each group. No difference in clinical characteristics and postoperative outcomes were noted. Length of hospital stay was 2.4 ± 0.7 days vs. 2.6 ± 1.1 days (p = 0.520). In the robotic and laparoscopic groups, total costs were USD 16,275 ± 4018 vs. 12,690 ± 2834 (absolute difference USD 3585, 95%CI 1416-5753, p = 0.002), direct costs were USD 5037 ± 1282 vs. 3720 ± 1308 (absolute difference USD 1316, 95% CI 509-2214, p = 0.002), and indirect costs were USD 11,238 ± 3234 vs. 8970 ± 3021 (absolute difference USD 2,268, 95% CI 317-4220, p = 0.024). Subgroup analyses revealed a decreasing trend in the cost difference in patients undergoing primary gastric bypass and revisional surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall hospital costs were higher in patients operated on with the robotic system than with laparoscopy, yet a clinical advantage has not been demonstrated so far. Subgroup analyses showed lesser disparity in costs among patients undergoing revisional bariatric surgery, where robotics are likely to be more worthwhile.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Outcome Trends Over Time: Are We Improving?

BACKGROUND

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is an effective treatment option for patients with obesity. Robotic sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) is reported to have worse short-term patient outcomes compared to laparoscopic SG (LSG), but prior studies may not have accounted for evolving technology, including stapler utilization.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared RSG and LSG outcomes over different time periods.

SETTING

Academic Hospital.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The 2015 to 2021 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Project (MBSAQIP) databases were used. Matched cohort analyses compared adverse outcomes within 30 days for the 2015-2018 and 2019-2021 cohorts. Bivariate and regression models compared cohorts using Stata/MP 17.0.

RESULTS

Seven hundred sixty-eight thousand and sixty-nine SG were analyzed. Over the 7-year study period, all patient outcomes, operation length (OL), and length of stay (LOS) trended downward for RSG, except surgical site infection (SSI). In the 2015-2018 cohort, leak was significantly higher with RSG (OR 1.53), and OL and LOS longer (p < 0.001). In the 2019-2021 cohort which corelated with a significant increase in robotic cases, leak (OR 1.36), SSI (OR 1.46), and morbidity (OR 1.11) were higher with RSG. While the mean difference in OL and LOS decreased between the two time periods, they remain longer for RSG (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

While RSG and LSG are safe with similar mortality, RSG continues to be associated with higher rates of morbidity, leak, and SSI, as well as longer OL, hospital LOS, and higher cost. The study is limited by the ability to account for the impact of surgeon experience and stapler utilization on outcomes.

The Trajectory of Revisional Bariatric Surgery: Open to Laparoscopic to Robotic

Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is the most effective therapeutic intervention for patients with obesity, with sleeve gastrectomy (SG) being the most commonly performed primary MBS procedure. Long-term studies have demonstrated that 15-20% of patients require revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) due to weight-related issues or surgical complications. Despite the gold standard being laparoscopic revision, there are other available approaches such as open or robotic-assisted. An extensive literature review was performed for articles from their inception to February 2024. A descriptive review of MBS procedures (SG, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), single anastomosis duodeno-ileostomy (SADI) and biliopancreatic diversion-duodenal switch (BPD-DS)) was carried out to report and compare outcomes between primary and revisional bariatric surgery. A similar review was conducted to compare outcomes of revisional approaches (open, laparoscopic, robotic). RYGB remains the dominant RBS with a similar safety profile compared to revisional SADI and BPD-DS. In terms of the RBS surgical approach, all three options showed comparable short and long-term outcomes, with robotic RBS being associated with longer operative time and variable length of stay. Additional long-term studies are required to further validate our conclusions.

First Assistant In Bariatric Surgery: A Comparison Between Laparoscopic And Robotic Approaches: A 4-Year Analysis of the MBSAQIP Database (2016-2019)

PURPOSE

The first assistant (FA) plays an important role in the operating room for bariatric surgery. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between the type of FA and operative time (OT) and postoperative outcomes comparing robotic and laparoscopic approaches in bariatric surgery.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) data for 2016-2019 was queried. Log-normal regression was performed to evaluate the association of FAs and OT variations within and between groups. We used logistic regression to examine the relationship between the type of FA and 30-day outcomes across all procedures and approaches.

RESULTS

A total of 691,789 patients who underwent robotic (R), and laparoscopic (L) sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric-bypass (RYGB), and duodenal switch (DS) were included. The percentage variation of OT was higher in the laparoscopic group (L-SG: 8.18%, L-RYGB: 9.88%, and L-DS: 15.00%) compared to the robotic group (R-SG: 2.43%, R-RYGB: 5.76%, and R-DS: 0.80%). There was not a significant difference in 30-day outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic approaches for the same procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The FA was associated with a decreased variability in OT in the robotic cohort compared to the laparoscopic group with no significant difference in complication rates. These results suggest that the robotic approach may decrease the need for skilled FAs in bariatric procedures.

Analysis of the Impact of the Learning Curve on the Safety Outcome of the Totally Robotic-Assisted Biliopancreatic Diversion with Duodenal Switch: a Single-Institution Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

Totally robotic-assisted biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD/DS) learning curve has been described to be longer at approximately 50 cases, at which point operative time and complications rate decrease and tend to stabilize. This study aimed to form an analysis of the impact of the learning curve on the safety outcomes of the totally robotic-assisted BPD/DS.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who underwent primary totally robotic-assisted BPD/DS by one of our certified bariatric and metabolic surgeon member of our institution was performed. The patients were classified into two groups, the learning stage group (first 50 cases) and the mastery stage group. Differences in operative time in minutes and postoperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Two hundred seventy-six patients were included. The operative time and the postoperative length of stay were significantly higher in the learning stage group (173.8 ± 35.8 min vs. 139.2 ± 30.2 min, p= 0.0001; 3.4 ± 1.4 days vs. 2.6 ± 0.9 days, p= 0.0002). The overall leakage rate was significantly higher in the learning stage group (8% vs. 0.4%, p= 0.0001). The global rate of complications for the learning stage group was 14%, and for the mastery stage group was 6.6% (p= 0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

After the first 50 cases, the operative time, the length of stay, and the overall rate of complications decreased, being especially significant the decrease in the duodeno-ileal anastomosis leakage rate after reaching the learning curve.

[The first experience of robot-assisted bariatric surgery using the Senhance system in patients with morbid obesity]

OBJECTIVE

To study the results of robot-assisted bariatric surgery using the Senhance system in patients with morbid obesity.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective cohort study included 74 patients who underwent bariatric surgery (Senhance digital laparoscopy system) between January 2022 and May 2023. Of these, 12 patients underwent robot-assisted longitudinal gastrectomy, 20 patients - robot-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, 36 patients - robot-assisted gastric bypass with one anastomosis/mini-gastric bypass, 6 patients - surgical exploration. We assessed duration of surgery, docking, placement of trocars and robotic manipulators, the need for their intraoperative displacement, incidence of intraoperative complications and conversions to laparoscopic surgery, intraoperative blood loss and early postoperative complications, severity of pain syndrome on the 1st day after surgery.

RESULTS

Mean surgery time was 87 [67, 120], 116 [78, 139], 96 [79, 125] and 141 [112, 184] min, respectively. Intraoperative blood loss was less than 50 ml. There were no complications requiring surgical treatment, cardiovascular, respiratory and other complications within 1 month.

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted bariatric surgery using the Senhance system is feasible and safe for patients. Immediate results of robotic surgery are comparable to those after laparoscopy. However, large experience and cost-effectiveness analysis are required to assess the feasibility of robotic systems in bariatric surgery.

Operative Time and 30-Day Outcomes in Bariatric Surgery: Comparison between Robotic and Laparoscopic Approach: 4-Year MBSAQIP Database Analysis

BACKGROUND

The main criticism of robotic surgery is longer operative time (OT). The aim of this study was to examine the variables that determine OT, the association between OT and 30-day outcomes, and the effect of the robotic approach in bariatric surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

MBSAQIP data for 2016 to 2019 were queried. Logistic regression was performed to examine the association between OT and outcomes for each surgical approach while adjusting for patients' characteristics. The results of each fitted logistic regression model were reported as odds ratio and the associated 95% CI.

RESULTS

A total of 666,182 patients underwent robotic sleeve gastrectomy (R-SG), laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (R-RYGB), laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, robotic duodenal switch (R-DS), and laparoscopic duodenal switch). More patients underwent laparoscopic surgery (89.7%) than robotic surgery (10.3%). OT for robotic cases was longer than for laparoscopic cases (p < 0.0001). Longer OT was associated with increased odds of adverse 30-day outcomes irrespective of the surgical approach. The association between OT and adverse outcomes was stronger in the laparoscopic cohort. There was no significant difference in postoperative outcomes when comparing the laparoscopic and robotic approaches after adjusting for OT, except a lower reoperation rate for R-SG (p = 0.03) and readmission rates in R-RYGB and R-DS (p < 0.01). The variability of OT was higher in the laparoscopic group and was more affected by the first assistant.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes in robotic bariatric surgery were comparable with the laparoscopic approach despite longer OT. Use of robotic surgery decreased the variability in OT.

Controversial Role of Robot in Primary and Revisional Bariatric Surgery Procedures: Review of the Literature and Personal Experience

Laparoscopy is the surgical standard of care for bariatric procedures; however, during the last two decades, the robotic approach has gained increasing interest. It is currently considered a safe and effective alternative to laparoscopy. This literature review investigates the role of the robotic approach for primary and revisional bariatric procedures, with the particular aim of comparing this technique with the standard-of-care laparoscopic approach. The feasibility of robotic dissection and suturing could have potential advantages: robotics may prevent the risk of leak and bleeding and other surgical complications, determining potential benefits in terms of operative time, length of hospital stay, and learning curve. Considering primary procedures, the literature reveals no advantages in robotic versus the laparoscopic approach for adjustable gastric banding and sleeve gastrectomy. Robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is associated with a longer operative time and a shorter hospital length of stay than laparoscopy. The robotic approach in revisional surgery has been proven to be safe and effective. Despite the longer operative time, the robotic platform could achieve a lower bleeding rate compared with laparoscopy. The surgeon’s selection criteria related to referrals to the robotic approach of difficult-perceived cases could represent a bias. In conclusion, robotic surgery can be considered a safe and effective approach in both primary and revisional bariatric surgery, despite the lack of evidence to support its routine use in primary bariatric surgery. However, in revisional bariatric surgery and in surgical complex procedures, the robotic approach could have potential benefits in terms of surgical complications and learning curves.

Current Status of Robot-Assisted Revisional Bariatric Surgery

Bariatric surgery has been demonstrated to be effective in achieving significant weight loss and remission of obesity-related comorbidities. However, a percentage of patients fail to lose enough weight, regain weight, or experience postoperative complications, requiring additional interventions. Revisional bariatric surgeries (RBS) involve the wide spectrum of procedures that aim to treat complications of the index operation or achieve further weight loss. These are technically challenging procedures due to adhesions of the internal organs, reduced working space, and a distorted anatomy. Indications, timing, and type of operation for RBS are not standardized, and there is no consensus on the best surgical approach. Some authors claim a robotic platform could be advantageous in these types of procedures that are performed in reduced, deep operating fields, or those requiring precision and accuracy. This review examines the most current and representative literature on the outcomes of robot-assisted RBS. Included studies demonstrate the safety and feasibility of the robotic approach for RBS. However, long operative times and high costs remain major drawbacks of the device. Finally, if we consider that many centers have not yet completed the learning curve for robot-assisted RBS, the potential for improved outcomes seems promising.

Robotic Revisional Bariatric Surgery: a High-Volume Center Experience

PURPOSE

The number of bariatric revisional procedures is growing. Scarce evidence is available regarding the role and postoperative outcomes of robotic-assisted revisional bariatric surgery (RRBS). The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and postoperative outcomes of RRBS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of patients who underwent RRBS between 2012 and 2019 was performed. Primary outcomes of interest were 30-day major morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay (LOS), urgent reoperation rates, and percentage of total weight loss (%TWL).

RESULTS

RRBS was performed in 76 patients; among these 60 (78.9%) underwent conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (C-RYGB). Failed weight loss (76%) and gastroesophageal reflux (9.2%) were the main indications for revision. Primary bariatric procedures included gastric band (LAGB) (50%), sleeve gastrectomy (SG) (40.8%), and RYGB (6.6%). Major morbidity and mortality rates were 3.9% and 1.3%, respectively. Mean LOS was 2.1 days, and 3 patients (3.9%) required urgent reoperation. The %TWL at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months was 10.2%, 16.6%, 18.3%, and 22.4% respectively. Comparative analysis of C-RYGB after failed LAGB and SG showed similar morbidity. Higher readmission rates (SG: 22.2% vs. LAGB: 0%, p = 0.007) and lower %EWL at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months were found in C-RYGB after SG.

CONCLUSION

This is one of the largest single-center series of RRBS published in the literature; the data indicate that robotic approach for revisional bariatric surgery is safe and helps achieving further weight loss. RRBS outcomes might be influenced by the primary procedure.

Comparative analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery: perioperative outcomes from the MBSAQIP database

BACKGROUND

There are limited data evaluating the role of robotics in revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) compared with laparoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic RBS.

SETTING

The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database.

METHODS

The 2015 to 2017 MBSAQIP database was queried for patients undergoing revisional robotic and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Multivariate logistic regression was used to compare outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic approaches, adjusting for demographic characteristics, co-morbidities, and operative time.

RESULTS

A total of 17,012 patients underwent revisional SG with 15,935 (93.7%) laparoscopic and 1077 (6.3%) robotic, and 12,442 patients underwent revisional RYGB with 11,212 (90.1%) laparoscopic and 1230 (9.9%) robotic. Overall morbidity was higher in robotic SG compared with laparoscopic SG (6.7% versus 4.5%; adjusted odds ratio 1.51; P < .01) which was not the case after adjustment for operative time. Robotic RYGB was associated with comparable overall morbidity to laparoscopic (9.3% versus 11.6%; adjusted odds ratio .83; P = .07) although respiratory complications, pneumonia, superficial surgical site infections, and postoperative bleeding were lower with robotic RYGB. The robotic approach with both procedures was associated with longer operative time (P < .01). Length of stay was longer in the robotic group for SG (P < .01) but was not different for RYGB (P = .91).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic RBS has an increased complication profile compared with the laparoscopic approach for SG and decreased for RYGB. Further analysis is needed regarding variability in surgeon technique and operative experience to determine what factors contribute to these differences.

Does Robotic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Provide Outcome Advantages over Standard Laparoscopic Approaches?

Objective

The aim was to compare clinical outcomes of patients treated with totally robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (TRRYGB) with those treated with the different laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) techniques.

Summary Background Data

The clinical benefit of the robotic approach to bariatric surgery compared to the standard laparoscopic approach is unclear. There are no studies directly comparing outcomes of TRRYGB with different LRYGB techniques.

Methods

Outcomes of 578 obese patients who underwent RYGB between 2011 and 2014 at an academic center were assessed. Multivariable analysis and propensity matching were used for comparing TRRYGB to different LRYGB techniques, including 21-mm EEA circular-stapled gastrojejunal anastomosis (GJA, LRYGB-21CS), linear-stapled GJA (LRYGB-LS), and hand-sewn GJA (LRYGB-HS).

Results

The TRRYGB technique required a longer mean operative time compared to the other groups, respectively 204 ± 46 vs. 139 ± 30 min (LRYGB-21CS), 206 ± 37 vs. 158 ± 30 min (LRYGB-LS), and 210 ± 36 vs. 167 ± 30 min (LRYGB-HS). TRRYGB experienced a lower stricture rate (2 vs. 17%, P = 0.003), shorter hospital stay (2.6 ± 1.2 vs. 4.3 ± 5.5 days, P = 0.008), and lower readmission rate (12 vs. 28%, P = 0.009). No significant differences in outcomes were observed when comparing RRYGB to LRYGB-LS or LRYGB-HS.

Conclusions

TRRYGB increases operative time compared to all LRYGB techniques. TRRYGB was superior to LRYGB-21CS in terms of significantly shorter hospital stay, lower readmission rate, and less frequent GJA stricture formation. TRRYGB provides no clinical advantages over the LRYGB-LS and LRYGB-HS techniques.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s11695-018-3228-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Robotic Revisional Bariatric Surgery in a Complex Patient Population

BACKGROUND

Utilization of the robotic platform has become more common in bariatric applications. We aim to show that robotic revisional bariatric surgery (RRBS) can be safely performed in a complex patient population with perioperative outcomes equivalent to laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery (LRBS).

METHODS

Retrospective review was conducted of adult patients undergoing laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery (LRBS) or robotic revisional bariatric surgery (RRBS) at our institution from September 2007 to December 2016. Patients undergoing planned two-stage bariatric procedures were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 84 patients who underwent LRBS (n = 66) or RRBS (n = 18) were included. The index operation was adjustable gastric banding (AGB) in 39/84 (46%), sleeve gastrectomy (VSG) in 23/84 (27%), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) in 13/84 (16%), and vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) in 9/84 (11%). For patients undergoing conversion from AGB (n = 39), there was no difference in operative time, length of stay, or complications by surgical approach. For patients undergoing conversion from a stapled procedure (n = 45), the robotic approach was associated with a shorter length of stay (5.8 ± 3.3 vs 3.7 ± 1.7 days, p = 0.04) with equivalent operative time and post-operative complications. There were three leaks in the LRBS group and none in the RRBS group (p = 0.36). Major complications occurred in 3/39 (8%) of patients undergoing conversion from AGB and 2/45 (4%) of patients undergoing conversion from a stapled procedure (p = 0.53) with no difference by surgical approach.

CONCLUSIONS

RRBS is associated with a shorter length of stay than LRBS in complex procedures and has at least an equivalent safety profile. Long-term follow-up data is needed.

Robotic versus laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a MBSAQIP analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy has become the procedure of choice for the treatment of morbid obesity. Robotic sleeve gastrectomy is an alternative surgical option, but its utilization has been low. The aim of this study was to evaluate the contemporary outcomes of robotic sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) versus laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) using a national database from accredited bariatric centers.

STUDY DESIGN

Using the 2015 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database, clinical data for patients who underwent RSG or LSG were examined. Emergent and revisional cases were excluded. A multivariate logistic regression model was utilized to compare the outcomes between RSG and LSG.

RESULTS

A total of 75,079 patients underwent sleeve gastrectomy with 70,298 (93.6%) LSG and 4781 (6.4%) RSG. Preoperative sleep apnea and hypoalbumenia were significantly higher in the RSG group (P < 0.01). Mean length of stay was similar between RSG and LSG (1.8 ± 2.0 vs. 1.7 ± 2.0 days, P = 0.17). Operative time was longer in the RSG group (102 ± 43 vs. 74 ± 36 min, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality between the RSG versus LSG group (0.02% vs. 0.01%, AOR 0.85; 95% CI 0.11-6.46, P = 0.88). However, RSG was associated with higher serious morbidity (1.1% vs. 0.8%, AOR 1.40; 95% CI 1.05-1.86, P < 0.01), higher leak rate (1.5% vs. 0.5%, AOR 3.14; 95% CI 2.65-4.42, P < 0.01), and higher surgical site infection rate (0.7% vs. 0.4%, AOR 1.55; 95% CI 1.08-2.23, P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic sleeve gastrectomy has longer operative time and is associated with higher postoperative morbidity including leak and surgical site infections. Laparoscopy should continue to be the surgical approach of choice for sleeve gastrectomy.

Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy in Adolescents; Reality or Hype

BACKGROUND

The rising prevalence of childhood obesity and concomitant increase in comorbid disease pose significant challenges for the health care system. While mounting evidence demonstrates the safety and efficacy of bariatric surgery for severely obese adolescents, the potential role of robotic technology has not been well defined.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to establish the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) in treating severe adolescent obesity. In addition, 30-day outcomes and hospital charges were compared to subjects undergoing RSG versus laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 28 subjects (14 LSG vs. 14 RSG) at a single institution was conducted. Data collection included demographics, body mass index, comorbidities, hospital length of stay (LOS), operative time, 30-day outcomes, and hospital charges. Analysis was performed using chi-square, Fisher's exact, and nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum tests.

RESULTS

There were no differences in subject demographics or comorbidities. While median operative time was longer for RSG vs. LSG (132 vs. 100 min, p = 0.0002), the median LOS for RSG compared to LSG was shorter (69.6 vs. 75.9 h, p = 0.0094). In addition, RSG-related hospital charges were higher ($56,646 vs. $49,498, p = 0.0366). No significant differences in post-operative outcomes or complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

RSG is equally safe and efficacious when compared to LSG among adolescents. Similar to studies in adults, LOS is shortened while hospital charges are higher. Larger prospective studies are needed to gain insight regarding cost benefit ratios.

Robotic platform for gastric bypass is associated with more resource utilization: an analysis of MBSAQIP dataset

BACKGROUND

The current literature comparing robot-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RA-RYGB) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) is limited to single center retrospective series.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to compare perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent RA-RYGB with those who underwent LRYGB.

SETTING

National database.

METHODS

Data on patients who underwent RA-RYGB and LRYGB were extracted from the 2015 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program participant use file. A 1:8 propensity score matching (RA-RYGB:LRYGB) was performed, and the 30-day outcomes of the propensity-matched cohorts were compared.

RESULTS

In total, 36,158 patients met inclusion criteria, including 2660 RA-RYGB (7.4%) cases, which were propensity matched (1:8) with 21,280 LRYGB cases having similar preoperative characteristics. RA-RYGB was associated with longer median operative time (136 versus 107 min; P<.001) and a higher 30-day readmission rate (7.3% versus 6.2%; P = .03). There were no statistical differences between the RA-RYGB and LRYGB cohorts with respect to all-cause morbidity (10.6% versus 10.7%; P = .8), serious morbidity (1.2% versus 1.7%; P = .07), mortality (0.1% versus .2%; P = .2), unplanned intensive care unit admission (1.1% versus 1.3%; P = .3), reoperation (2.4% versus 2.4%; P = .97), or reintervention (3.0% versus 2.5%; P = .2) within 30 days after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Based on available national data, RA-RYGB appears safe compared with a conventional laparoscopic approach for gastric bypass. However, RA-RYGB was associated with longer operative time and higher readmission rate, indicating greater resource use. Further studies are needed to better delineate the role of robotic platforms in bariatric surgery.

Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass as a Reoperative Bariatric Procedure

BACKGROUND

We evaluate the outcomes of robot-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RRYGB) as a reoperative bariatric procedure (RBP).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was done from 2007 to 2014, and all the patients who underwent RRYGB as a RBP at a teaching university hospital were included.

RESULTS

A total of 32 patients underwent RRYGB as a reoperation from adjustable gastric band (AGB n = 16) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG n = 11) or previous gastric bypass (n = 5). Twenty patients underwent conversion to RRYGB due to weight loss failure, either after AGB (n = 13) or SG (n = 7). Twelve patients underwent reoperation because of complications of index procedure. Mean preoperative weight was 109.7 ± 29.5 kg, and BMI was 40 ± 10.6 kg/m(2). The mean operative time for RRYGB was 226 ± 45.3 min with a blood loss of 20 ± 15.9 ml. Average length of stay was 3 days. In two cases, pin point leaks were detected intraoperatively during check gastroscopy, and they were repaired with sutures. There were no postoperative anastomotic leaks or hemorrhage or gastrojejunostomy strictures. None of the patients required a blood transfusion or reoperation within perioperative period. In the patients who underwent RRYGB for weight loss failure (n = 20), the mean excess weight loss (EWL) was 39.2% at 6 months (n = 11), 53.8% at 1 year (n = 13), and 60.7% at 2 years (n = 6).

CONCLUSIONS

RRYGB is safe and effective to be used as a revisional bariatric procedure. The weight loss outcomes and complication rates compare favorably with the published results of laparoscopic technique, although the small sample size may not be enough to reach definite conclusions.

Early Australian experience in robotic sleeve gastrectomy: a single site series

BACKGROUND

The use of robotic platforms in bariatric surgery has recently gained relevance. With an increased use of this technology come concerns regarding learning curve effects during the initial implementation phase. The sleeve gastrectomy though may represent an ideal training procedure for introducing the robot into bariatric surgical practice. The present review of the first 10 consecutive robotic sleeve gastrectomy procedures performed in an Australian bariatric programme by a single surgeon describes the evolution of the technique, learning curve and initial patient outcomes.

METHODS

Between 2014 and 2015, robotic sleeve gastrectomies were performed as primary and revisional procedures by a consistent surgeon-assistant team. Technique evolution and theatre set-up were documented. Patient demographics, operative time (robot docking and total operation time), additional operative procedures performed, operative and post-operative complications at 1, 3 and 6 months post-procedure and weight loss achieved at 6 months were retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively maintained database.

RESULTS

Ten robotic sleeve gastrectomies were performed without significant operative complications. One patient was treated as an outpatient with oral antibiotics for a superficial wound infection. The median total operative time was 123 min (interquartile range (IQR) 108.8-142.5), with a median incision to docking time of 19 min (IQR 15.0-31.8). Length of stay in hospital was 2-3 days. Median excess weight loss achieved at 6 months was 50% (IQR 33.9-66.5).

CONCLUSION

This study describes a method of safely introducing the da Vinci robot into bariatric surgical practice.

Most common robotic bariatric procedures: review and technical aspects

Since its appear in the year 1997, when Drs. Cadiere and Himpens did the first robotic cholecystectomy in Brussels, not long after the first cholecystectomy, they performed the first robotic bariatric procedure. It is believed that robotically-assisted surgery’s most notable contributions are reflected in its ability to extend the benefits of minimally invasive surgery to procedures not routinely performed using minimal access techniques. We describe the 3 most common bariatric procedures done by robot. The main advantages of the robotic system applied to the gastric bypass appear to be better control of stoma size, avoidance of stapler costs, elimination of the potential for oropharyngeal and esophageal trauma, and a potential decrease in wound infection. While in the sleeve gastrectomy and adjustable gastric banding its utility is more debatable, giving a bigger advantage during surgery on patients with a very large BMI or revisional cases.

Bariatric surgery for metabolic syndrome in obesity

Metabolic syndrome is closely associated with morbid obesity and leads to increased risk of cardiovascular diseases and related mortality. Bariatric surgery is considered an effective option for the management of this condition. We searched MEDLINE, Current Contents, and the Cochrane Library for papers published on bariatric surgery outcomes in English from January 1, 1990, to April 20, 2014. Bariatric surgery can significantly reduce body weight, resolve or cure many of the symptoms of metabolic syndrome, including type 2 diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and improve long-term survival. Surgery, in addition to existing therapy, could therefore be considered as an optimal treatment for patients with metabolic syndrome and morbid obesity.

European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery

Following an extensive literature search and a consensus conference with subject matter experts the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. Robotic surgery is still at its infancy, and there is a great potential in sophisticated electromechanical systems to perform complex surgical tasks when these systems evolve. 2. To date, in the vast majority of clinical settings, there is little or no advantage in using robotic systems in general surgery in terms of clinical outcome. Dedicated parameters should be addressed, and high quality research should focus on quality of care instead of routine parameters, where a clear advantage is not to be expected. 3. Preliminary data demonstrates that robotic system have a clinical benefit in performing complex procedures in confined spaces, especially in those that are located in unfavorable anatomical locations. 4. There is a severe lack of high quality data on robotic surgery, and there is a great need for rigorously controlled, unbiased clinical trials. These trials should be urged to address the cost-effectiveness issues as well. 5. Specific areas of research should include complex hepatobiliary surgery, surgery for gastric and esophageal cancer, revisional surgery in bariatric and upper GI surgery, surgery for large adrenal masses, and rectal surgery. All these fields show some potential for a true benefit of using current robotic systems. 6. Robotic surgery requires a specific set of skills, and needs to be trained using a dedicated, structured training program that addresses the specific knowledge, safety issues and skills essential to perform this type of surgery safely and with good outcomes. It is the responsibility of the corresponding professional organizations, not the industry, to define the training and credentialing of robotic basic skills and specific procedures. 7. Due to the special economic environment in which robotic surgery is currently employed special care should be taken in the decision making process when deciding on the purchase, use and training of robotic systems in general surgery. 8. Professional organizations in the sub-specialties of general surgery should review these statements and issue detailed, specialty-specific guidelines on the use of specific robotic surgery procedures in addition to outlining the advanced robotic surgery training required to safely perform such procedures.

Review of contemporary role of robotics in bariatric surgery

With the rise in a number of bariatric procedures, surgeons are facing more complex and technically demanding surgical situations. Robotic digital platforms potentially provide a solution to better address these challenges. This review examines the published literature on the outcomes and complications of bariatric surgery using a robotic platform. Use of robotics to perform adjustable gastric banding, sleeve gastrectomy, roux-en-y gastric bypass (RYGB), biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch and revisional bariatric procedures (RBP) is assessed. A search on PubMed was performed for the most relevant articles in robotic bariatric surgery. A total of 23 articles was selected and reviewed in this article. The review showed that the use of robotics led to similar or lower complication rate in bariatric surgery when compared with laparoscopy. Two studies found a significantly lower leak rate for robotic gastric bypass when compared to laparoscopic method. The learning curve for RYGB seems to be shorter for robotic technique. Three studies revealed a significantly shorter operative time, while four studies found a longer operative time for robotic technique of gastric bypass. As for the outcomes of RBP, one study found a lower complication rate in robotic arm versus laparoscopic and open arms. Most authors stated that the use of robotics provides superior visualisation, more degrees of freedom and better ergonomics. The application of robotics in bariatric surgery seems to be a safe and feasible option. Use of robotics may provide specific advantages in some situations, and overcome limitations of laparoscopic surgery. Large and well-designed randomised clinical trials with long follow-up are needed to further define the role of digital platforms in bariatric surgery.

Robotically Assisted Single Anastomosis Duodenoileal Bypass after Previous Sleeve Gastrectomy Implementing High Valuable Technology for Complex Procedures

Staged bariatric procedures in high risk patients are a common used strategy for morbid obese patients nowadays. After previous sleeve gastrectomy, surgical treatments in order to complete weight loss or comorbidities improvements or resolutions are possible. One strategy is to perform a novel technique named SADI (single anastomosis duodenoileal bypass-sleeve). We present the technique for totally intracorporeal robotically assisted SADI using five ports and a liver retractor. We aim to see if the robotic technology offers more advantageous anastomosis and dissection obtained by the robotic approach in comparison to standard laparoscopy. The safety, feasibility, and reproducibility of a minimally invasive robotic surgical approach to complex abdominal operations such as SADI are discussed.

Early outcomes of the first Brazilian experience in totally robotic bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND

Currently, bariatric surgery is the most effective therapy for morbid obesity, and the laparoscopic approach is considered gold-standard for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Totally robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass has been proposed as a major evolution in minimally invasive bariatric surgery and its use is becoming more widespread.

AIM

To provide an early report of the first Brazilian case-series of totally robotic gastric bypass and perioperative short-term outcomes.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent totally robotic gastric bypass at two recognized centers of bariatric surgery were included. Patient demographic data, body mass index, operative times, hospital stay, complications and mortality in the 30 postoperative days were recorded. The surgeons received the same training program before the clinical procedures and all the surgeries were performed under the supervision of an experienced robotic surgeon.

RESULTS

The surgeries were performed by five surgeons and included 68 patients (52 women - 76.5%), with a mean age of 40.5 years (range 18 to 59) and mean BMI of 41.3 (35.2 - 59.2). Total mean operative time was 158 minutes (range 90 to 230) and mean overall hospital stay was 48 h. Postoperative surgical complication rate (30 day) was 5.9%, with three minor and one major complication. There was no mortality, leak or stricture.

CONCLUSION

Even with surgeons in early learning curves, the robotic approach within a well-structured training model was safe and reproducible for the surgical treatment of the morbid obesity.

Robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: operative results in 100 patients

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastric bypass is gold-standard for morbid obesity treatment.

AIM

To describe the results of robotic gastric bypass for morbid obesity patients.

METHOD

Were operated on 100 morbidly obese patients through totally robotic gastric bypass between 2013 and 2014. They were 83% female. The age ranged from 20 to 65 years old (medium 48,5 years); the body mass index varied between 38-67 (medium 42,3 kg/cm2). The procedure was designed with 3 cm long gastric pouch, 1 m biliopancreatic limb, 1,2 m alimentary limb, manual or stapled anastomosis. There were four super-super-obese patients and four revisional surgeries.

RESULTS

Docking time varied from 1 to 20 min (medium 4 min). Console time varied from 40-185 min (medium 105 min). There were no intra operative complications or mortality. There were two lower limb deep venous thrombosis. There was no readmission in the first 30 days.

CONCLUSION

Totally robotic gastric bypass is safe and reproduceable, with excellent results even during the initial experience with regular surgeries, revisional surgeries or in super-obese patients. Adequate training may shortens or obviates the learning curve.