Outcomes following robot-assisted versus laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: the New York State experience

Robotic vs Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy in Patients with BMI > 40 kg/m2 (Class ≥ III Obesity): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Class III obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2) is a growing global health concern, often managed with bariatric surgery. A major surgical intervention is sleeve gastrectomy, which can be performed either robotically (RSG) or laparoscopically (LSG). However, there is limited data with regards to RSG vs LSG outcomes for patients with Class III obesity or greater.

METHODS

We adhered to PRISMA 2020 guidelines and Cochrane handbook. We examined studies that included patients with obesity Class III or greater who had undergone RSG and were compared to LSG. We collected data regarding the peri-operative outcomes and we analysed them using random effects models with mean differences or odds ratios. Sensitivity analysis was performed for outcomes with moderate to high heterogeneity.

RESULTS

A total of seven studies were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 63,286 patients (5,314 RSG and 57,972 LSG). No significant differences were observed in the length of hospital stay between RSG and LSG (MD: 0.06, 95% CI: -0.19 to 0.31, I2 = 81%, P = 0.63). Operative duration was significantly longer for RSG compared to LSG (MD: 27.47, 95% CI: 26.15 to 28.79, I2 = 0%, P < 0.00001). Readmission rates showed no significant differences between the two approaches (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.92, I2 = 41%, P = 0.64). Conversion rates, surgical site infections, and bleeding events also had no significant differences between RSG and LSG (conversion OR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.15 to 1.61; SSI OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.06 to 1.68; bleeding OR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.55 to 1.34; all with I2 = 0%). Sensitivity analysis revealed no significant impact of individual studies on the pooled estimates, except for a decrease in heterogeneity for readmission rates after excluding one study.

CONCLUSION

With the available limited evidence, robotic sleeve gastrectomy does not convey any substantial benefits over the conventional laparoscopic approach. However, due to the limited number of studies identified as well as the small number of studies retained for some outcomes, caution is needed when interpreting the results. Future research is required to examined the estimated weight loss and draw definitive conclusions.

Association between hospital participation in Medicare Shared Savings Program and hospital use of robotic surgical approach

BACKGROUND

In 2012, Medicare introduced Shared Savings Program (MSSP) accountable care organizations (ACO) model to improve the value of health care services as a part of the national comprehensive Accountable Care Act. While the effect of the MSSP on primary care has been extensively analyzed, little is known about the effect of the MSSP on cost and quality of surgical care, in particular the use of high-cost robotic surgical modalities. Hospitals routinely market robotic procedures as an indicator of high quality, despite limited evidence of their clinical value. This study examines the relationship between hospital participation in the MSSP and use of robotic surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis using 2016-2019 publicly available data on hospital MSSP participation and use of robotic-assisted procedures in New York State. Using bivariate and multivariate approaches, we identified hospital characteristics associated with the use of robotic technique and hospital quality.

RESULTS

Of the 157 general hospitals in NYS, 83 (53%) offered robotic surgery and 73 (47%) participated in the MSSP. MSSP-affiliated hospitals were more selective in the type of robotic procedures than non-MSSP hospitals, favoring procedures with stronger evidence-base such as prostatectomies. Hospitals that performed robotic surgery selectively had significantly lower spending per patient (p = 0.04). Higher volume of robotic procedures correlated with higher hospital ranking.

CONCLUSIONS

MSSP participation is associated with more selective use of robotic procedures and lower hospital spending. More research is needed to understand the relationship between hospital investments in quality improvement, use of robotic surgery and hospital performance rankings.

Perioperative Outcomes of Staple Line Reinforcement During Laparoscopic and Robotic Sleeve Gastrectomy: An MBSAQIP Cohort Study of 284,580 Patients

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the association between staple line reinforcement (SLR) and 30-day outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic (LSG) or robotic sleeve gastrectomy (RSG).

METHODS

Adults undergoing primary LSG or RSG with and without SLR were analyzed from the 2018-2019 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement (MBSAQIP) database. Baseline characteristic differences by SLR status for LSG and RSG were adjusted using entropy balancing. Multivariable weighted logistic and linear regression was then performed to examine the association between SLR and primary and secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 284,580 patients, 88.6% (n = 252,035) had LSG and 11.4% (n = 32,545) had RSG, of which 63.7% (n = 160,545) and 50.8% (n = 16,541) had SLR, respectively. Compared to LSG and RSG without SLR, both LSG and RSG with SLR encountered higher adjusted odds of emergency department visit (AOR 1.08, 95%CI 1.03-1.10, p < 0.001; AOR 1.10, 95%CI 1.01-1.20, p = 0.029, respectively) as well as lower adjusted odds of leakage (AOR 0.85, 95%CI 0.76-0.94, p = 0.002; AOR 0.71, 95%CI 0.54-0.92, p = 0.011, respectively) and gastrointestinal bleeding (AOR 0.79, 95%CI 0.77-0.91, p < 0.001; AOR 0.77, 95%CI 0.70-0.84, p < 0.001, respectively). LSG with SLR was also associated with greater odds of unplanned intubation (AOR 1.52, 95%CI 1.16-1.99, p = 0.002) and mechanical ventilation (AOR 1.74, 95%CI 1.22-2.50, p = 0.002). RSG with SLR was associated with higher odds of intraoperative conversion (AOR 1.71, 95%CI 1.15-2.54, p = 0.008), and lower odds of acute renal failure (AOR 0.27, 95%CI 0.11-0.65, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

This entropy-balanced analysis of the MBSAQIP registry demonstrated an overall association between SLR and lower postoperative leakage and bleeding after RSG and LSG.

Thirty day outcomes for laparoscopic versus robotic sleeve gastrectomy: Does the stapler matter?

BACKGROUND

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) remains a safe and effective treatment for severe obesity. The number of robotic SG (RSG) has steadily increased from 2015 to 2021. Prior studies have shown higher rates of some adverse outcomes with RSG but have not accounted for staplers used.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to compare outcomes for RSG compared to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), accounting for stapler type used.

SETTING

National hospital derived administrative data.

METHODS

The PINC AI Healthcare Database was used for the current study. Analyzed cohort included elective LSG or RSG performed between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2021. Patient, hospital, billing, provider, insurance, and operative data were captured. Bleeding, leak, and other outcomes were identified by ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes. Propensity score matching (PSM) compared outcomes between RSG with SureForm stapler vs. LSG with powered stapler.

RESULTS

56,013 LSG and 13,832 RSG were analyzed. RSG increased from 15 % in 2019 to 25 % in 2021 with an absolute 27 ​% increase in robotic stapler utilization for RSG. PSM analysis compared, 5434 RSG with SureForm Stapler vs. 5434 LSG with powered staplers showed equivalent complication rates, shorter LOS, but longer operative time with RSG.

CONCLUSIONS

When stapler type used is accounted for, patient outcomes following RSG and LSG are equivalent.

Comparing the Efficacy of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has emerged as the predominant metabolic bariatric surgery. With a growing number of studies evaluating the feasibility of robotic sleeve gastrectomy (RSG), it becomes imperative to ascertain whether the outcomes of both techniques are comparable. This study endeavors to synthesize existing evidence and juxtapose the surgical outcomes of LSG and RSG.

METHODS

We collected articles comparing LSG and RSG published between 2011 and 2024. The compiled data included author names, study duration, sample size, average age, gender distribution, geographical location, preoperative body mass index (BMI), bougie diameter, duration of hospitalization, surgical duration, readmission rates, conversion rates, costs, postoperative percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL), postoperative BMI, mortality rates, and complications.

RESULTS

We incorporated 21 articles. Both the RSG and LSG cohorts exhibited comparable rates of readmission, conversion, mortality, and incidence of complications (p > 0.05). Moreover, the efficacy of weight loss was similar between RSG and LSG. Nonetheless, RSG was linked to longer operative duration (WMD, -27.50 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI], -28.82 to -26.18; p < 0.0001), prolonged hospitalization (WMD, -0.15 days; 95% CI, -0.25 to -0.04; p = 0.006), and elevated expenses (WMD, -5830.9 dollars; 95% CI, -8075.98 to -3585.81; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

While both RSG and LSG demonstrated positive postoperative clinical outcomes, RSG patients experienced extended hospital stays, longer operative times, and increased hospitalization costs compared to LSG patients. Using the robotic platform for sleeve gastrectomy (SG) in patients with obesity did not appear to offer any clear benefits.

Mortality After Alcohol Septal Ablation vs. Septal Myectomy in Patients With Obstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

Background: Alcohol septal ablation (ASA) and septal myectomy (SM) are 2 options for septal reduction therapy (SRT) to treat medication-resistant symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). Because differences in mortality rates after these different SRT methods have not been extensively investigated in real-world settings, in this study compared the 1-year mortality rates after ASA and SM using population-based database. Methods and Results: Utilizing New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) data from 2005 to 2016, we performed a comparative effectiveness study of ASA vs. SM in patients with HCM. The outcome was all-cause death up to 360 days after SRT. We constructed a multivariable logistic regression model and performed sensitivity analysis with propensity score (PS)-matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) methods. We identified 755 patients with HCM who underwent SRT: 348 with ASA and 407 with SM. The multivariable analysis showed that all-cause deaths were significantly fewer in the ASA group at 360 days after SRT (adjusted odds ratio=0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-0.84; P=0.02). The PS-matching and IPTW methods also supported a lower mortality rate in the ASA group at 360 days post-SRT. Conclusions: In this population-based study of patients with HCM who underwent SRT in a real-world setting, the 1-year all-cause mortality rate was significantly lower in patients who underwent ASA compared with SM.

Comparison of robot-assisted sleeve gastrectomy outcomes in multiple staple line treatment modalities from 2015 to 2019: a 5-year propensity score-adjusted MBSAQIP® analysis

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) is an increasingly common approach to sleeve gastrectomy (SG). Staple line reinforcement (SLR) is well-discussed in laparoscopic SG literature, but not RSG- likely due to the absence of dedicated robotic SLR devices. However, most RSG cases report SLR. This retrospective analysis compares outcomes in RSG cases reporting (1) any staple line treatment (SLT) vs none and (2) SLR vs oversewing.

METHODS

MBSAQIP was queried for adults who underwent RSG from 2015 to 2019. Open procedures, Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery, hand-assisted, single-incision, concurrent procedures, and illogical BMIs were excluded (n = 3444). Final sample included 52,354 patients. Two comparisons were made: SLT (n = 34,886) vs none (n = 17,468) and SLR (n = 22,217) vs oversew (n = 5620). We fitted multivariable regression models to estimate risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) and performed propensity score analysis with inverse probability of treatment weight based on patient factors.

RESULTS

Most RSG cases utilized SLT (66.6%). Cases with SLT had a reduced risk of organ space SSI (RR 0.68 [0.49, 0.94]), 30-day reoperation (RR 0.77 [0.64, 0.93]), 30-day re-intervention (RR 0.80 [0.67, 0.96]), sepsis (RR 0.58 [0.35, 0.96]), unplanned intubation (RR 0.59 [0.37, 0.93]), extended ventilator use (RR 0.46 [0.23, 0.91]), and renal failure (RR 0.40 [0.19, 0.82]) compared to no-treatment cases. In single-treatment cases (n = 27,837), most utilized SLR (79.8%). Cases with oversew had a higher risk of any SSI (RR 1.70 [1.19, 2.42]), superficial incisional SSI (RR 1.71 [1.06, 2.76]), septic shock (RR 6.47 [2.11, 19.87]), unplanned intubation (RR 2.18 [1.06, 4.47]), and extended ventilator use (> 48 h) (RR 4.55 [1.63, 12.71]) than SLR.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest SLT in RSG is associated with reduced risk of some adverse outcomes vs no-treatment. Among SLT, SLR demonstrated lower risk than oversewing. However, risk of all-cause mortality, cardiac arrest, and unplanned ICU admission were not significant.