Comparison of the morbidity, weight loss, and relative costs between robotic and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for the treatment of obesity in Brazil

Costs of robotic and laparoscopic bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery is currently the most effective approach to addressing severe obesity and reducing related health issues. Laparoscopy remains the standard technique, whereas robotic-assisted surgery is increasingly adopted, although its role in bariatric surgery remains debated. The main criticism concerns its higher costs and the lack of evidence demonstrating improved clinical outcomes compared to other treatment methods. We aimed to compare the costs of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic bariatric surgery through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Following PRISMA reporting guidelines, a literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for studies comparing robotic-assisted and laparoscopic bariatric surgery. The primary outcome was total hospital costs, with bias assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Effect sizes were calculated with 95% confidence intervals, and an overall effect was estimated using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 14 retrospective studies (293 articles screened) were included, with 1,414,357 patients (112,363 robotic; 1,301,994 laparoscopic). Total hospital costs favored laparoscopic surgery (SMD 0.721, 95%CI: 0.555-0.887, p < 0.001, absolute difference USD 3819). Operating room costs also favored laparoscopy (SMD 1.339, 95%CI 0.202-2.476, p = 0.021, absolute difference: USD 9746). Laparoscopy was associated with shorter operative time, while robotic surgery showed a slight advantage in hospital stay and complication rates. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main findings. The quality of evidence was rated as low due to potential biases.

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review and meta-analysis provides the most current and robust evidence indicating that the robotic-assisted approach incurs significantly higher costs than the laparoscopic approach in bariatric surgery. This finding remained consistent across the overall analysis as well as in nearly all subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to accurately evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the robotic approach in both primary and revisional bariatric procedures.

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.

Port Site Placement and Outcomes for Surgical Obesity and Metabolic Surgeries (PSPOSO) Checklist: A New Reporting Checklist Based on Evidential Assessment of the Number of Trocars and Positions

Since the early 1980s, efforts to standardize ergonomic practices in laparoscopic surgeries have aimed to improve procedural efficiency and reduce complications, but clinical validation remains limited. In metabolic and bariatric surgeries (MBS), innovations in trocar site placements, driven by the popularity of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), have advanced surgical techniques. However, practices often vary based on individual surgeon preferences rather than standardized evidence-based criteria. This study introduces the Port Site Placement and Outcomes for Surgical Obesity and Metabolic Surgeries (PSPOSO) checklist, aiming to standardize port placements and improve reporting consistency. A systematic review and meta-analysis of LSG studies were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Data were extracted from 34 studies involving 7173 cases. Key variables included port configurations, manipulation angles, and outcomes such as operative time and excess weight loss percentage (EWL%). Innovative methods were used to estimate manipulation and azimuth angles from available intraoperative images. Statistical analyses and meta-regression were performed to identify associations between port configurations and surgical outcomes. Findings revealed substantial variability in port placements, with no significant effect of manipulation angles or port numbers on operative time or EWL% at 6, 12, and 24 months (p-values > 0.05). High residual heterogeneity suggests that factors beyond manipulation angles and port counts contribute to outcome variability. The PSPOSO checklist provides a framework for standardizing port placement and ergonomic parameters in MBS, enhancing reproducibility and safety. Future studies should validate the checklist across diverse clinical settings to refine surgical approaches and improve patient outcomes. PROSPERO: CRD42024598674.

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.

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.

Trocar number and placement for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and comparison of single-incision and conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (CLSG) has been conducted in multiple centers for treating morbid obesity, however, there are no standard criteria for (1) placing the trocar; and (2) how many trocars should be used. Single-incision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SLSG), a newly emerged technique in 2008, has been proposed as an alternative to CLSG in recent years, however, there is no definite evidence for this.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy cases from January 2006 to October 2022. We then summarized the trocar numbers and placement patterns among these studies. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the difference between SLSG and CLSG in the perioperative and postoperative indices.

RESULTS

A total of 61 studies involving 20 180 patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for treating morbid obesity were included in the systematic review, including 11 on SLSG, 35 on CLSG, and 15 studies comparing SLSG and CLSG. A systematic review showed that the trocar number varied in different CLSG studies, mainly using four or five trocars. The trocars were mainly placed in position, presenting an inverted trapezoid pattern and a left-predominant pattern. Meta-analysis showed that the operative time in the SLSG was significantly higher than that in the CLSG, and the pain Visual Analog Scale rating on postoperative day 1 in the CLSG was significantly higher than in the SLSG. There were no statistical significances in the other complications or surgical efficiency.

CONCLUSIONS

In the CLSG, the majority of the trocars were arranged in an inverted trapezoid pattern and were of the left-predominant type. Although SLSG is a feasible technique in selected patients, there is insufficient evidence to recommend its widespread use compared with CLSG. High-quality randomized controlled trials with large study populations and long follow-up periods will be required in the future.

Surgical, metabolic, and prognostic outcomes for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass versus sleeve gastrectomy: a systematic review

The purpose of this systematic review was to study 4 different aspects of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYBG) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG). Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) are two commonly performed bariatric procedures. This systematic review aims to compare RYGB with SG when it comes to weight changes, and cardiometabolic risk profile. Another aim was to evaluate laparoscopic and robotic techniques for both surgeries. PubMED, Cochrane Library, and JAMA Network were searched for articles evaluating RYGB and SG from 2005-2020. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Four different categories were analyzed comparing RYGB with SG as well as robotic versus laparoscopic approach. The Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) checklist was used to assess the quality of evidence in the studies included in this systematic review. A total of 29 studies were included looking at different aspects of RYGB and SG. RYGB is superior to SG for weight loss, improved or complete remission of cholesterol and hypertensive medications. Consensus is lacking regarding decrease in BMI, total cholesterol, and triglycerides. There is lack of evidence regarding decrease of incidence of MI or stroke. For RYGB and SG, the majority of studies found that the robotic technique was more expensive and took longer. RYGB when compared with SG was associated with larger weight loss, decreased or cessation of cholesterol and hypertensive medications, and lower cholesterol. Decrease in BMI had varying results, with RYGB being superior in more studies, while there was no difference in other studies. There was a lack of evidence to support if RYGB or SG was superior to decreasing triglyceride levels. For both RYGB and SG, the robotic approach was costlier and took more operating time versus the laparoscopic approach.

Robotic bariatric surgery for the obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bariatric surgery (BS) in patients with obesity by robotic bariatric surgery (RBS) compared with laparoscopic bariatric surgery (LBS).

METHODS

The study was performed through searching in Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase database and Cochrane Library until March 31, 2020 comparing RBS with LBS. Data were calculated on the following endpoints: operative time, length of hospital stay, reoperation within 30 days, overall complications, leak, stricture, pulmonary embolisms, estimated blood loss and mortality. Data as relative risks (OR), or weighted mean difference (WMD) were summarized with 95% confidence interval (CI). Risk of publication bias was assessed through standard methods.

RESULTS

Thirty eligible trials including 7,239 robotic and 203,181 laparoscopic surgery cases showed that RBS was referred to attain longer operative time [WMD = 27.61 min; 95%CI (16.27-38.96); P < 0.01] and lower mortality [OR 2.40; 95% CI (1.24-4.64); P = 0.009] than LBS. Length of hospital stay [WMD = - 0.02; 95% CI (- 0.19-0.15); P = 0.819], reoperation within 30 days [OR 1.36; 95% CI (0.65-2.82); P = 0.411], overall complications [OR 0.88; 95% CI (0.68-1.15); P = 0.362], leak [OR 1.04; 95% CI (0.43-2.51); P = 0.933], stricture [OR 1.05; 95% CI (0.52-2.12); P = 0.895], pulmonary embolisms [OR 1.97; 95% CI (0.93-4.17); P = 0.075], estimated blood loss[WMD = - 1.93; 95% CI (- 4.61-0.75); P = 0.158] were almost similar in both RBS group and LBS group. Three was no statistically significant difference between RRYGB and LRYGB in EWL%, no statistical significance between RSG and LSG after 1 year, 2 years and 3 years.

CONCLUSION

RBS presented lower mortality within 90 days and longer operative time in this meta-analysis with similar safety and efficacy for the obesity compared with LBS in other outcomes. Additionally, RBS might be beneficial in the future if it would be evaluated in comprehensive and long-term endpoints.

First Experience with the Use of "Micro Hand S" Surgical Robot in Sleeve Gastrectomy

Background: The Chinese minimally invasive surgical robot system "Micro Hand S" was developed in 2013. However, there was no bariatric surgery performed with the "Micro Hand S" surgical robot. We first aim to report our experience with the "Micro Hand S" robotic-assisted sleeve gastrectomy and evaluate the safety and feasibility of the "Micro Hand S" surgical robot. Methods: Between March 2018 and November 2019, sleeve gastrectomies were performed with the "Micro Hand S" robotic system on 7 consecutive patients by a trained surgeon-assistant team. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative clinical data were collected. A questionnaire was used to investigate surgeons' satisfaction with the "Micro Hand S" robot platform. Results: All the patients underwent successful operations. There were no cases of perioperative mortality and complications. The intraoperative blood loss was 20.8 ± 3.6 mL. The average overall operating time was 166.4 ± 16.1 minutes. The weight, body mass index, waist circumference, and hip circumference decreased significantly at 3 months (all P < .01) and 6 months (all P < .01) postoperatively. The percentage excess weight loss was 62.6% ± 10.3% and 85.9% ± 13.3% at 3 and 6 months postoperatively. Surgeons were satisfied with the "Micro Hand S" surgical robot performance in sleeve gastrectomy. Eighty percent of surgeons would incline to use it again. Conclusions: The first use of the "Micro Hand S" robotic surgical platform in sleeve gastrectomy was carried out successfully. The perioperative outcomes are satisfying. Further comparative and large-sample studies are warranted to verify our preliminary outcomes.

Global hospital and operative costs associated with various ventral cavity procedures: a comprehensive literature review and analysis across regions

Objectives: The aim of this literature review was to provide a comprehensive report on hospital costs, and cost components, for a range of ventral cavity surgical procedures across three regions of focus: (1) Americas, (2) Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA), and (3) Asia-Pacific. Methods: A structured search was performed and utilized a combination of controlled vocabulary (e.g., "Hepatectomy", "Colectomy", "Costs and Cost Analysis") and keywords (e.g. "liver resection", "bowel removal", "economics"). Studies were considered eligible for inclusion if they reported hospital-related costs associated with the procedures of interest. Cost outcomes included operating room (OR) time costs, total OR costs, ward stay costs, total admission costs, OR cost per minute and ward cost per day. All costs were converted to 2018 USD. Results: Total admission costs were observed to be highest in the Americas, with an average cost of $15,791. The average OR time cost per minute was found to vary by region: $24.83 (Americas), $14.29 (Asia-Pacific), and $13.90 (EMEA). A cost-breakdown demonstrated that OR costs typically comprised close to 50%, or more, of hospital admission costs. This review also demonstrates that decreasing OR time by 30 min provides cost savings approximately equivalent to a 1-day reduction in ward time. Conclusion: This literature review provided a comprehensive assessment of hospital costs across various surgical procedures, approaches, and geographical regions. Our findings indicate that novel processes and healthcare technologies that aim to reduce resources such as operating time and hospital stay, can potentially provide resource savings for hospital payers.

Comparison of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy leak rates in five staple-line reinforcement options: a systematic review

Background

Staple-line leaks following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) remain a concerning complication. Staple-line buttressing is largely adopted as an acceptable reinforcement but data regarding leaks have been equivocal. This study compared staple-line leaks in five reinforcement options during LSG: no reinforcement (NO-SLR), oversewing (suture), nonabsorbable bovine pericardial strips (BPS), tissue sealant or fibrin glue (Seal), or absorbable polymer membrane (APM).

Methods

This systematic review study of articles published between 2012 and 2016 regarding LSG leak rates aligned with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Variables of interest included leak rates, bleeding, and complications in addition to surgical and population parameters. An independent Fisher’s exact test was used to compare the number of patients with and without leaks for the different reinforcement options.

Results

Of the 1633 articles identified, 148 met inclusion criteria and represented 40,653 patients. Differences in age (older in APM; p = 0.001), starting body mass index (lower in Suture; p = 0.008), and distance from pylorus (closer in BPS; p = 0.04) were observed between groups, but mean bougie size was equivalent. The overall leak rate of 1.5% (607 leaks) ranged from 0.7% for APM (significantly lower than all groups; p ≤ 0.007 for next lowest leak rate) to 2.7% (BPS).

Conclusions

This systematic review of staple-line leaks following LSG demonstrated a significantly lower rate using APM staple-line reinforcement as compared to oversewing, use of sealants, BPS reinforcement, or no reinforcement. Variation in surgical technique may also contribute to leak rates.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-019-06782-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Robotic Surgery is More Expensive with Similar Outcomes in Sleeve Gastrectomy: Analysis of the NIS Database

The aim of this study was to compare postoperative outcomes after robotic-assisted and laparoscopic bariatric sleeve gastrectomy (SG). Sleeve gastrectomy is traditionally performed using laparoscopic techniques. Robotic-assisted surgery enables surgeons to perform minimally invasive SG, but with unknown benefits. Using a national database, we compared postoperative outcomes after laparoscopic SG and robotic-assisted SG. National data from individuals undergoing elective SG in the National Inpatient Sample database between 2011 and 2013 were analyzed. Propensity score matching was used to match robotic and laparoscopic groups by demographics, comorbidities, and hospital characteristics. The matching cohorts were compared. A total of 26,195 patients who underwent elective SG for morbid obesity were included. Of these, 25,391 (96.9%) were completed via laparoscopy, whereas 804 (3.1%) were performed with robotic assistance. There were no significant differences in demographics and subsequent postoperative complications. The inhospital mortality was similar. Length of hospital stay was statistically different, with a mean of 1.88 in laparoscopic versus 2.08 days in robotic (P < 0.001). Higher total hospital charges were noted in the robotic-assisted SG group (median US$38,569 vs US$54,658, P < 0.001). These differences were evident even after adjusting for confounding factors: wound infection, atelectasis, bowel obstruction, pneumonia, and bowel obstruction (P < 0.001).

30-day outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: First analysis based on MBSAQIP

BACKGROUND

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most popular bariatric procedure in the United States. Although standardized, variation exists in how the staple line is managed. Robotic approaches to SG (RSG) are increasing, though benefits compared with the conventional laparoscopic approach (LSG) remain controversial.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the safety of RSG versus LSG using the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program data registry, controlling for variation in staple-line management.

SETTING

University health network, United States.

METHODS

SG cases from January 1 to December 31, 2016, in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program data registry were included. Demographic characteristics and 30-day outcomes were analyzed with separate Mann-Whitney rank sums tests, χ² tests, or Fisher's exact tests, with P < .05 denoting statistical significance. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to control for method of staple-line treatment.

RESULTS

Of the 107,726 patients who underwent SG, 7385 were RSG. Treatment of the staple line was associated with a significantly lower rate of bleeding, with odds ratios of .69 and .58 for staple-line reinforcement alone and staple-line reinforcement plus oversewing, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed RSG had a higher rate of organ space infection than LSG (odds ratio 2.07). Otherwise, RSG did not significantly differ from LSG save for a longer median operative time (89 versus 63 min, respectively, P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

RSG is a growing alternative to the conventional laparoscopic approach. According to the 2016 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database, the RSG carries a higher risk of organ space infection. The reasons behind this finding require further study.

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 versus Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy for Morbid Obesity: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

We aim to review the available literature on obese patients treated with robotic or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, in order to compare the clinical outcomes and intraoperative parameters of the two methods. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library and EBSCOhost databases, in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria incorporating 29,787 patients. Robotic sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) technique showed significantly higher mean operative time and increased length of hospital stay. Post-operative incidence of leakage, wound infection and bleeding, along with weight reduction, were comparable. The majority of the studies assessing charges found increased cost in RSG population. Well-designed, randomized controlled studies, comparing RSG to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), are necessary to assess further their clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

Robotics in general surgery: A systematic cost assessment

The utilisation of robotic-assisted techniques is a novelty in the field of general surgery. Our intention was to examine the up to date available literature on the cost assessment of robotic surgery of diverse operations in general surgery. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched in a systematic way to retrieve the included studies in our review. Thirty-one studies were retrieved, referring on a vast range of surgical operations. The mean cost for robotic, open and laparoscopic ranged from 2539 to 57,002, 7888 to 16,851 and 1799 to 50,408 Euros, respectively. The mean operative charges ranged from 273.74 to 13,670 Euros. More specifically, for the robotic and laparoscopic gastric fundoplication, the cost ranged from 1534 to 2257 and 657 to 763 Euros, respectively. For the robotic and laparoscopic colectomy, it ranged from 3739 to 17,080 and 3109 to 33,865 Euros, respectively. For the robotic and laparoscopic cholecystectomy, ranged from 1163.75 to 1291 and from 273.74 to 1223 Euros, respectively. The mean non-operative costs ranged from 900 to 48,796 from 8347 to 8800 and from 870 to 42,055 Euros, for robotic, open and laparoscopic technique, respectively. Conversions to laparotomy were present in 34/18,620 (0.18%) cases of laparoscopic and in 22/1488 (1.5%) cases of robotic technique. Duration of surgery robotic, open and laparoscopic ranged from 54.6 to 328.7, 129 to 234, and from 50.2 to 260 min, respectively. The present evidence reveals that robotic surgery, under specific conditions, has the potential to become cost-effective. Large number of cases, presence of industry competition and multidisciplinary team utilisation are some of the factors that could make more reasonable and cost-effective the robotic-assisted technique.

Resident education in robotic-assisted vertical sleeve gastrectomy: outcomes and cost-analysis of 411 consecutive cases

BACKGROUND

Robotic technology is increasingly prevalent in bariatric surgery, yet there are national deficiencies in exposure of surgical residents to robotic techniques.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to accurately characterize the perioperative outcomes of a resident teaching model using the robotic-assisted sleeve gastrectomy.

SETTING

University Hospital.

METHODS

We identified 411 consecutive patients who underwent robotic sleeve gastrectomy at our institution from a prospectively maintained administrative database. Perioperative morbidity, operative time, and supply cost of the procedure were analyzed.

RESULTS

Mean operative time was 96.4±24.9 minutes; mean robot usage time was 63.9 minutes (range 30.0-122.0 min). Ninety-day morbidities included reoperation (0.72%), major bleeding complications (0.48%), staple line leak (0.24%), stricture (0.97%), need for blood transfusion (3.86%), surgical site infection (1.69%), deep vein thrombosis (0.48%), and pulmonary embolism (0.48%). Mortality was nil. The resident cohort achieved operative time plateaus after five consecutive cases. Subset analysis for fiscal year 2014 demonstrated significantly increased supply cost for robotic sleeve gastrectomy compared with its laparoscopic equivalent.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted sleeve gastrectomy can be instituted as a model for resident robotic education with rates of morbidity and operative times equivalent to historical laparoscopic controls. The robot's enhanced ergonomics and its opportunity for resident education must be weighed against its increased supply cost.