Robot-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: Learning Curve, Perioperative, and Short-Term Outcomes

Robotic-assisted sleeve gastrectomy: an analysis of cost, peri-operative outcomes and learning curve in a prospective cohort study

Minimally invasive sleeve gastrectomy as a treatment for individuals living with severe obesity remains the most common operation in bariatric and metabolic surgery. With the introduction of robotic-assisted surgery, an increasing proportion of sleeve gastrectomies are performed using the da Vinci robotic surgical platform. To date, the evidence to support or contest this practice is still unclear although meta-analyses have shown safety and feasibility. Here we present a prospective cohort study comparing 101 consecutive patients who had either robotic-assisted or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for obesity. Short-term outcomes, including length of stay and thirty-day complication rates, as well as the total consumable cost for both the laparoscopic and robotic-assisted procedures were collected. We also assessed the learning curve associated with robotic-assisted sleeve gastrectomy. The cohort had similar baseline characteristics in terms of BMI and co-morbidity. The mean operative time, post-operative CRP and complication rates were the same in both groups. Length of stay was statistically shorter for the robotic-assisted cohort in comparison to the laparoscopic cohort; 1.3 days versus 1.9 days, respectively (p < 0.005). The percentage of patients requiring only a single night admission was significantly higher at 82% in the robotic-assisted group, compared to 32% in the laparoscopic group (p < 0.005); in the context of a nurse-led-discharge protocol. Total consumable cost was significantly lower in the robotic group at an average of £2310, compared to £2665 in the laparoscopic group (p < 0.001). The learning curve for the procedure was found to be 26 cases, predominantly driven by the resectional component of the procedure. Robotic-assisted sleeve gastrectomy on the 4th generation da Vinci system utilising robotic advanced energy and Sureform stapling is safe and effective. This cohort study suggests that using the robotic platform is favourable in terms of overall consumable cost and may reduce length of stay. In the context of previous robotic experience, the observed learning curve is relatively short.

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.

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.

Outcomes of Staple Line Reinforcement Following Robotic Assisted Sleeve Gastrectomy Based on MBSAQIP Database

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study is to evaluate the outcomes for Staple Line Reinforcement (SLR) in RA-SG based on the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database for 2019.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We selected patients who underwent RA-SG in the MBSAQIP PUF (Public Utility File) for the year 2019 and grouped them based on their SLR status: Oversewing (OS), Buttressing (BR), both OS and BR and neither. Our primary outcomes were bleeding, organ space infection (OSI), and adverse events (AEs), and our secondary outcomes were operation length, hospital length of stay, readmissions, and conversion to open rates. We conducted separate chi square or one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) as appropriate and multivariable direct logistic regression models for the categorical outcomes.

RESULTS

We found 115,621 patients with complete data of which there were 16,494 who underwent RA-SG. Our results did not show a statistically significant decrease in incidence of postoperative bleeding for BR and OS (Adjusted OR = 0.782, p = 0.2291 and Adjusted OR of 0.482, p = 0.054 for BR and OS respectively). There was a statistically significant effect for SLR status on operation length, with OS patients having the highest operative times (log-transformed mean = 2.03), followed by both BR + OS patients (log-transformed mean = 1.99). BR patients had the shortest operation length.

CONCLUSION

SLR did not result in any significant differences related to bleeding, OSI or AEs following RA-SG according to MBSAQIP for the year 2019. However, OS resulted in significantly longer operative time compared to BR alone.

Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Bariatric Surgery Compared to Standard Laparoscopic Approach Using a Standardized Definition: First Look at the 2020 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Improvement Project (MBSAQIP) Data

PURPOSE

The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of robotic-assisted (RA-) approach compared to the standard laparoscopic (L-) approach using the 2020 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) registry Public Use File (PUF). Our secondary objective is to establish standards for the reporting of outcomes using PUF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using the PUF database (n = 168,568), patients were divided into sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), revisions, and conversions and then analyzed separately. We created balanced covariate through propensity score matching and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW). We also conducted multivariable relative risk regression to confirm our results.

RESULTS

For RYGB, the incidence of "transfusion" was significantly lower in the RA-RYGB compared to the L-RYGB. There was no significant difference in the rate of Serious Event Occurrences (SEOs) or rate of intervention at 30 days. For SG, there was a higher rate of "transfusion" in the RA group. Incidence of SEOs was also significantly higher in the RA-group. There was no significant difference in SEOs for conversions; however, revisions had a trend toward a lower rate of SEOs favoring the robotic approach. Operative times were significantly higher for all RA-groups.

CONCLUSION

RA- approach in metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) remains controversial because of differences in outcomes. The use of SEOs as reported by MBSAQIP in its semi-annual report can be used as a composite score to assess outcomes while using PUF. Further studies are needed to compare RA- to L- MBS.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) represents more than half of all bariatric procedures in the USA, and robot-assisted sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) is becoming increasingly common. There is a paucity of evidence regarding postoperative surgical outcomes (> 30 days) in RSG patients, especially as these patients move between multiple hospital systems.

METHODS

Using 2012-2018 New York State's inpatient and ambulatory data from the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System, bivariate and multivariate analyses were employed to examine patient long-term outcomes, postoperative complications, and charges following RSG versus LSG in unmatched and propensity score-matched (PSM) samples.

RESULTS

Among the 72,157 minimally invasive sleeve gastrectomies identified, 2365 (2.6%) were RSGs. In the PSM sample (2365 RSG matched to 23,650 LSG), RSG cases were more likely to be converted to an open procedure (2.3% vs 0.2% LSG patients, p < 0.01) and had a longer mean length of stay (LOS; 2.1 vs. 1.8 days LSG, p < 0.01). Postoperative complications were not different between RSG and LSG patients, but the proportion of emergency room visits resulting in inpatient readmissions was higher among RSG patients (5.5% vs. 4.2% in LSG patients, p < .01). Among the super obese (body mass index ≥ 50) patients, conversions to open procedure and LOS were also significantly higher for RSG versus LSG cases. Average hospital charges for the index admission ($47,623 RSG vs $35,934 LSG) and cumulative changes for 1 year from the date of surgery ($57,484 RSG vs $43,769 LSG) were > 30% higher for RSG patients.

CONCLUSIONS

RSG patients were more likely to have conversions to open procedures, longer postoperative stay, readmissions, and higher charges for both the index admission and beyond, compared to LSG patients. No clear advantages emerged for the utilization of the robotic platform for either average risk or extremely obese patients.

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.

Robotic-assisted surgery enhances the learning curve while maintaining quality outcomes in sleeve gastrectomy: a preliminary, multicenter study

BACKGROUND

The frequency of robotic-assisted bariatric surgery has been on the rise. An increasing number of fellowship programs have adopted robotic surgery as part of the curriculum. Our aim was to compare technical efficiency of a surgeon during the first year of practice after completing an advanced minimally invasive fellowship with a mentor surgeon.

METHODS

A systematic review of a prospectively maintained database was performed of consecutive patients undergoing robotic-assisted sleeve gastrectomy between 2015 and 2019 at a tertiary-care bariatric center (mentor group) and between 2018 and 2019 at a semi-academic community-based bariatric program (mentee 1 group) and 2019-2020 at a tertiary-care academic center (mentee 2 group).

RESULTS

257 patients in the mentor group, 45 patients in the mentee 1 group, and 11 patients in the mentee 2 group were included. The mentee operative times during the first year in practice were significantly faster than the mentor's times in the first three (mentee 1 group) and two (mentee 2 group) years (P < 0.05) but remained significantly longer than the mentor's times in the last two (mentee 1 group) and one (mentee 2 group) years (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in venothromboembolic events (P = 0.89) or readmission rates (P = 0.93). The mean length of stay was 1.8 ± 0.5 days, 1.3 ± 0.5 days, and 1.5 ± 0.5 days in the mentor, mentee 1, and mentee 2 groups, respectively (P < 0.0001). There were no reoperations, conversion to laparoscopy or open, no staple line leaks, strictures, or deaths in any group.

CONCLUSIONS

This is one of the first series to show that the robotic platform can safely be taught and may translate into outcomes consistent with surgeons with more experience while mitigating the learning curve as early as the first year in practice. Long-term follow-up of mentees will be necessary to assess the evolution of fellowship training and outcomes.

Cost Analysis of Robotic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in a Single Academic Center: How Expensive Is Expensive?

BACKGROUND

Although the use of da Vinci robotic platforms in bariatric surgery is gaining momentum, it is still controversial because of financial concerns.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of our study is to evaluate the cost of robotically assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (R-RYGB) versus conventional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (L-RYGB).

METHODS

We analyzed consecutive primary bariatric patients who underwent R-RYGB and compared them with patients who underwent L-RYGB during the same time period. Primary outcomes were overall cost for length of stay, operating time, and supplies. Direct cost data was generated using the StrataJazz reporting module, which is fed daily from EPIC, our electronic health record system, and contains hospital-based data only. Secondary outcomes were 30-day rates of complications, reoperations, and readmissions.

RESULTS

We found no difference in primary or secondary outcomes following R-RYGB and L-RYGB. The overall cost for R-RYGB and L-RYGB was not statistically different (median total cost for R-RYGB and L-RYBG was $6431.34 and $6349.09, P > 0.05, respectively). Operating time cost was significantly higher for R-RYGB compared with L-RYGB ($2248.51 versus $19,836.29, respectively, P < 0.0001, respectively). R-RYGB had lower cost of supplies as well as a shorter length of stay compared with L-RYGB (mean 1.5 versus 1.7 days, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study revealed no cost difference between R-RYGB and L-RYGB, with a decreased cost of supplies and trend toward lower hospital stay favoring R-RYGB. Further studies are needed to evaluate the outcomes of R-RYGB compared with L-RYGB; however, the cost of robotic surgery may not be a prohibitive factor.

Pros and Cons of Robotic Revisional Bariatric Surgery

Introduction

Revisional procedures in bariatric surgery are regarded as technically more demanding and riskier than primary interventions. While the use of the surgical robot has not yet proven to be advantageous in primary bariatric interventions, the question remains whether its use is justified for more complex revisional procedures.

Objective

To show that revisional bariatric surgery can be performed safely using the da Vinci® Xi surgical system.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively recorded data for revisional bariatric procedures between January 2016 and November 2019.

Results

Of 78 revision operations, four (5.1%) were performed by open surgery, 30 (38.5%) by laparoscopic surgery, and 44 (56.4%) by robotic surgery. A comparative analysis of robotic (n = 41) versus laparoscopic (n = 18) revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypasses (rRYGB) revealed significant differences favoring the robotic approach for operative time (130.7 vs. 167.6 min), C-reactive protein values at days 1 (27.9 vs. 49.1 mg/L) and 2 (48.2 vs. 83.6 mg/L) after surgery, and length of stay (4.9 vs. 6.2 days). Lower complication rates (Clavien-Dindo II-V) were found after rRRYGB (7.3 vs. 22.2%, not significant).

Conclusions

Revisional bariatric surgery using a robotic system is safe. The operative time performing rRRYGB is significantly shorter than rLRYGB in our experience. Otherwise, results were largely comparable. Due to different indications, different index operations and a wide range of revisional procedures, further studies are necessary to confirm these results.

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.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Perioperative Nutrition, Metabolic, and Nonsurgical Support of Patients Undergoing Bariatric Procedures - 2019 Update: Cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology, The Obesity Society, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, Obesity Medicine Association, and American Society of Anesthesiologists

OBJECTIVE

The development of these updated clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) was commissioned by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), The Obesity Society (TOS), American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS), Obesity Medicine Association (OMA), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Boards of Directors in adherence with the AACE 2017 protocol for standardized production of CPGs, algorithms, and checklists.

METHODS

Each recommendation was evaluated and updated based on new evidence from 2013 to the present and subjective factors provided by experts.

RESULTS

New or updated topics in this CPG include: contextualization in an adiposity-based chronic disease complications-centric model, nuance-based and algorithm/checklist-assisted clinical decision-making about procedure selection, novel bariatric procedures, enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery protocols, and logistical concerns (including cost factors) in the current health care arena. There are 85 numbered recommendations that have updated supporting evidence, of which 61 are revised and 12 are new. Noting that there can be multiple recommendation statements within a single numbered recommendation, there are 31 (13%) Grade A, 42 (17%) Grade B, 72 (29%) Grade C, and 101 (41%) Grade D recommendations. There are 858 citations, of which 81 (9.4%) are evidence level (EL) 1 (highest), 562 (65.5%) are EL 2, 72 (8.4%) are EL 3, and 143 (16.7%) are EL 4 (lowest).

CONCLUSIONS

Bariatric procedures remain a safe and effective intervention for higher-risk patients with obesity. Clinical decision-making should be evidence based within the context of a chronic disease. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory, with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.

Perioperative Outcomes of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy in the Super-obese

BACKGROUND

The robotic platform is often used for bariatric surgery in superobese patients (body mass index ≥ 50 kg/m²) with the assumption that it offers a technical advantage. This study aimed to compare perioperative outcomes of robotic-assisted sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in superobese patients.

METHODS

The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database was queried for superobese patients undergoing nonrevisional RSG and LSG from 2015 through 2017. Univariate analysis and multivariable logistic regression were used to compare outcomes in RSG and LSG.

RESULTS

A total of 61,493 patients (4685 RSG and 56,808 LSG) were identified. Patients were similar in terms of age (RSG 42.3 ± 11.8 versus LSG 42.4 ± 11.7 y; P = 0.60) and body mass index (RSG 56.8 ± 6.9 versus LSG 56.9 ± 7.1 kg/m²; P = 0.17). The RSG group had a longer operative time (102.4 ± 46.0 versus 74.7 ± 37.5 min; P < 0.01) and length of stay (1.79 ± 1.78 versus 1.66 ± 1.51 d; P < 0.01). Overall morbidity (RSG 3.5% versus LSG 3.7%; P = 0.54) and mortality (RSG 0.1% versus LSG 0.1%; P = 0.73) were similar between the two groups. After adjustment, RSG represented an independent risk factor for organ-space surgical site infection (adjusted odds ratio 2.70; 95% confidence interval 1.54-4.73; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of RSG in superobese patients infers higher risk for organ-space surgical site infection and is associated with prolonged operative time and length of stay. This questions the role of robotics in superobese patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy.

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.

Clinical practice guidelines for the perioperative nutrition, metabolic, and nonsurgical support of patients undergoing bariatric procedures - 2019 update: cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology, The Obesity Society, American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery, Obesity Medicine Association, and American Society of Anesthesiologists

OBJECTIVE

The development of these updated clinical practice guidelines (CPG) was commissioned by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, The Obesity Society, the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, the Obesity Medicine Association, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists boards of directors in adherence to the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists 2017 protocol for standardized production of CPG, algorithms, and checklists.

METHODS

Each recommendation was evaluated and updated based on new evidence from 2013 to the present and subjective factors provided by experts.

RESULTS

New or updated topics in this CPG include contextualization in an adiposity-based, chronic disease complications-centric model, nuance-based, and algorithm/checklist-assisted clinical decision-making about procedure selection, novel bariatric procedures, enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery protocols, and logistical concerns (including cost factors) in the current healthcare arena. There are 85 numbered recommendations that have updated supporting evidence, of which 61 are revised and 12 are new. Noting that there can be multiple recommendation statements within a single numbered recommendation, there are 31 (13%) Grade A, 42 (17%) Grade B, 72 (29%) Grade C, and 101 (41%) Grade D recommendations. There are 858 citations, of which 81 (9.4%) are evidence level (EL) 1 (highest), 562 (65.5%) are EL 2, 72 (8.4%) are EL 3, and 143 (16.7%) are EL 4 (lowest).

CONCLUSIONS

Bariatric procedures remain a safe and effective intervention for higher-risk patients with obesity. Clinical decision-making should be evidence-based within the context of a chronic disease. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.

Cost analysis of robotic sleeve gastrectomy (R-SG) compared with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (L-SG) in a single academic center: debunking a myth!

BACKGROUND

Although use of the da Vinci robotic platform in bariatric surgery is gaining momentum, there are financial concerns.

OBJECTIVES

Our retrospective study evaluated the cost of robotically assisted sleeve gastrectomy (R-SG) versus conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (L-SG).

SETTING

Center of Excellence bariatric surgery center in Allentown, Pennsylvania.

METHODS

We analyzed consecutive patients who underwent primary R-SG and compared them with L-SG patients. Primary outcomes were overall cost for length of stay, operating time, and supplies. Secondary outcomes were 30-day complications, reoperations, and readmissions.

RESULTS

We had no adverse events in either group. The overall cost for R-SG and L-SG was not statistically different (mean total cost for R-SG and L-SG was $5308.99 and $4918.88, respectively). Operating time cost was significantly higher for R-SG compared with L-SG ($1340 versus $112 for R-SG and L-SG, respectively). R-SG had a shorter length of stay compared with L-SG (1.4 versus 1.5 d, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study revealed no difference in cost R-SG and L-SG, with a trend toward shorter length of stay for R-SG over time.

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.

Robot-assisted sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-y gastric bypass: results from the metabolic and bariatric surgery accreditation and quality improvement program data registry

BACKGROUND

A stronger evidence base is needed to more fully understand the precise role that robot-assisted (RA) approaches may play in bariatrics.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the utilization and safety of RA-sleeve gastrectomy (RA-SG) and RA-Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RA-RYGB) using data from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) registry.

SETTING

National Database.

METHODS

We queried the MBSAQIP 2015 through 2016 registry for patients who underwent primary conventional laparoscopic or RA-SG and RA-RYGB. We compared pre- and perioperative characteristics and 30-day outcomes using logistic regression where number of events met statistical guidelines.

RESULTS

We included 126,987 cases: conventional laparoscopic SG (n = 83,940), RA-SG (n = 6,780), conventional laparoscopic RYGB (n = 33,525), and RA-RYGB (n = 2,742). The RA significantly lengthened operation time by 24 and 23 minutes for SG and RYGB, respectively. Mortality and serious adverse events were similar for the 2 techniques. RA-SG was associated with higher rates of 30-day intervention (1.3% versus .8%, OR: 1.38, P < .05) and hospital stay >2 days (12.1% versus 9.3%, OR: 1.30, P < .001). RA-RYGB was associated with higher 30-day rates of reoperation (2.6% versus 2.0%, OR: 1.37, P < .05) and readmission (7.0% versus 5.8%, OR:1.21, P < .05) and lower rates of transfusion (0.62% versus 1.12%, OR: .54, P < .05) and hospital stay >2 days (15.7% versus 17%, OR: .89, P < .05).

CONCLUSION

RA is as safe as the conventional laparoscopic approach in terms of mortality and serious adverse events.

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 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.