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

Indications and Outcomes of Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Conversional Bariatric Surgery: An MBSAQIP Study

BACKGROUND

Conversional bariatric surgeries (CBS) are performed using laparoscopic and robotic techniques, but comprehensive data comparing these approaches remains scarce.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the indications and outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic CBS.

METHODS

The MBSAQIP database was retrospectively analyzed from 2020 to 2022, comparing laparoscopic and robotic CBS. Primary outcomes were 30-day serious complications and mortality.

RESULTS

Of 72,189 CBS procedures, 75.4% were laparoscopic and 24.6% robotic. Mean age and BMI were similar between groups. The most common indications for both approaches were reflux, weight regain, and inadequate weight loss, with reflux being more prevalent in robotic CBS (38.3% vs 33.2%). Sleeve-to-bypass was the most common procedure in both groups (35.8% laparoscopic, 44.2% robotic). Robotic CBS had longer mean operative times (165.4 vs 121.7 min, p < 0.001) and slightly longer hospital stays (1.7 vs 1.6 days, p < 0.001). The rate of serious complications was slightly higher for robotic CBS, though not statistically significant (6.5% vs 6.1%, p = 0.08). Robotic CBS had higher rates of leak (0.9% vs 0.7%, p = 0.071), reoperation (2.8% vs 2.6%, p = 0.138), and readmission (6.7% vs 5.4%, p < 0.001). Mortality rates were similar (0.1% for both, p = 0.942).

CONCLUSIONS

Both laparoscopic and robotic CBS show similar safety profiles with comparable mortality rates. However, robotic CBS was associated with longer operative times, slightly longer hospital stays, and higher readmission rates. These findings suggest that the choice between approaches should consider individual patient factors and institutional expertise.

Hiatal Hernia Repair: A Century Between Soresi and da Vinci

A minimally invasive approach is the most common technique for hiatal hernia repair. The robotic platform offers a unique advantage that addresses the limitations of a laparoscopic repair. The steps of a robotic hiatal hernia repair include reduction of hernia contents, dissection of hernia sac, circumferential dissection of esophagus with 2.5 to 3 cm of intraabdominal esophagus, crural closure, and partial or complete fundoplication. The robotic hiatal hernia repair has comparable perioperative outcomes to the laparoscopic approach. This article discusses current controversies, limitations, and new technologies.

Scientific Evidence for the Updated Guidelines on Indications for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (IFSO/ASMBS)

The 2022 American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) and International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) updated the indications for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (MBS), replacing the previous guidelines established by the NIH over 30 years ago. The evidence supporting these updated guidelines has been strengthened to assist metabolic and bariatric surgeons, nutritionists, and other members of multidisciplinary teams, as well as patients. This study aims to assess the level of evidence and the strength of recommendations compared to the previously published criteria.

Robotic bariatric surgery reduces morbidity for revisional gastric bypass when compared to laparoscopic: outcome of 8-year MBSAQIP analysis of over 40,000 cases

INTRODUCTION

Robotic-assisted metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is gaining popularity. Revisional MBS is associated with higher perioperative morbidity compared to primary MBS. The optimal surgical approach to minimize complications in these complex cases is unclear. The goal of this study was to assess robot utilization in revisional MBS and compare laparoscopic and robotic revisional MBS outcomes in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the MBSAQIP database was performed identifying revisional sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) cases from 2015 to 2022. Primary MBS, open/emergent cases, cases converted to another approach, and combined cases other than esophagogastroduodenoscopy were excluded. 30-Day outcomes for laparoscopic and robotic cases were compared using multivariate logistic regression adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities, and operative variables.

RESULTS

41,404 Cases (14,474 SG; 26,930 RYGB) were identified. From 2015 to 2022, the percentage of revisional SG and RYGB cases performed robotically increased from 6.1% and 7.3% to 24.2% and 32.0% respectively. Laparoscopic SG had similar rates of overall morbidity, leak, bleeding, readmission, reoperation, and length of stay compared to robotic. Laparoscopic RYGB had significantly higher rates of overall morbidity (6.2% vs. 4.8%, p < 0.001, AOR 0.80 [0.70-0.93]), blood transfusion (1.5% vs. 1.0%, p < 0.05, AOR 0.74 [0.55-0.99]), superficial incisional SSI (1.2% vs. 0.4%, p < 0.001, AOR 0.30 [0.19-0.47]), and longer length of stay (1.87 vs. 1.76 days, p < 0.001) compared to robotic. Laparoscopic operative times were significantly shorter than robotic (SG: 86.4 ± 45.8 vs. 113.5 ± 51.7 min; RYGB: 130.7 ± 64.7 vs. 165.5 ± 66.8 min, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Robot utilization in revisional bariatric surgery is increasing. Robotic surgery has lower postoperative morbidity and shorter length of stay in revisional RYGB when compared to laparoscopic. Robotic platforms may have the capacity to improve the delivery of care for patients undergoing revisional bariatric surgery.

Scientific evidence for the updated guidelines on indications for metabolic and bariatric surgery (IFSO/ASMBS)

The 2022 American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) and International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) updated the indications for metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS), replacing the previous guidelines established by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) over 30 years ago. The evidence supporting these updated guidelines has been strengthened to assist metabolic and bariatric surgeons, nutritionists, and other members of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs), as well as patients. This study aims to assess the level of evidence and the strength of recommendations compared to the previously published criteria.

American society for metabolic and bariatric surgery: intra-operative care pathway for minimally invasive Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

BACKGROUND

Clinical care pathways help guide and provide structure to clinicians and providers to improve healthcare delivery and quality. The Quality Improvement and Patient Safety Committee (QIPS) of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) has previously published care pathways for the performance of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and pre-operative care of patients undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB).

OBJECTIVE

This current RYGB care pathway was created to address intraoperative care, defined as care occurring on the day of surgery from the preoperative holding area, through the operating room, and into the postanesthesia care unit (PACU).

METHODS

PubMed queries were performed from January 2001 to December 2019 and reviewed according to Level of Evidence regarding specific key questions developed by the committee.

RESULTS

Evidence-based recommendations are made for care of patients undergoing RYGB including the pre-operative holding area, intra-operative management and performance of RYGB, and concurrent procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

This document may provide guidance based on recent evidence to bariatric surgeons and providers for the intra-operative care for minimally invasive RYGB.

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.

Advancements in Bariatric Surgery: A Comparative Review of Laparoscopic and Robotic Techniques

This article examines the evolution of bariatric surgery, with a focus on emerging technologies such as robotics and laparoscopy. In the case of gastric bypass, no significant differences have emerged between the two techniques in terms of hospitalization duration, weight loss, weight regain, or 30-day mortality. Robotic surgery, while requiring more time in the operating room, has been associated with lower rates of bleeding, mortality, transfusions, and infections. In revisional bariatric surgery, the robotic approach has shown fewer complications, shorter hospital stays, and a reduced need for conversion to open surgery. In the case of sleeve gastrectomy, robotic procedures have required more time and longer postoperative stays but have recorded lower rates of transfusions and bleeding compared to laparoscopy. However, robotic surgeries have proven to be more costly and potentially more complex in terms of postoperative complications. The review has also addressed the topic of the single-anastomosis duodeno-ileal switch (SADIS), finding comparable results between robotic and laparoscopic techniques, although robotic procedures have required more time in the operating room. Robotic technology has proven to be safe and effective, albeit with slightly longer operative times in some cases.

Robot-assisted vs laparoscopic bariatric procedures in super-obese patients: clinical and economic outcomes

The increased operative time and costs represent the main limitations of robotic technology application to bariatric surgery. Robotic platforms may help the surgeon to overcome the technical difficulties in super-obese (SO, BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2) patients, in which multi-quadrant operations could be challenging. We aimed to evaluate the effect of robot-assisted (R) versus laparoscopic (L) approaches in Single Anastomosis Duodeno-Ileal Bypass with Sleeve Gastrectomy (SADI-S) and Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) in SO and Super-Super Obese (SSO, BMI ≥ 60 kg/m2) patients in terms of outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Bariatric procedures performed from 2012 to 2023 were retrospectively reviewed. The inclusion criteria were BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2, primary SADI-S or RYGB. Operative time (OT), early complications, post-operative stay (POS), overall costs and follow-up data were analyzed. A subgroup analysis for surgical procedures and SSO patients was also performed. Among 4596 patients, 174 RYGB and 91 SADI-S in BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2 patients were selected. After Propensity Score Matching analysis, two groups of patients were identified (laparoscopic and robot-assisted), each one composed of 18 RYGB and 26 SADI-S. Intraoperative and post-operative complication rates and POS were comparable. Mean OT was longer in robotic procedures compared with laparoscopy (199.1 ± 65.7 and 109.5 ± 39.1 min, respectively, p < 0.001). The difference in OT was eliminated after only SSO patients were included in the analysis (172.7 ± 24.1 vs 152.6 ± 26.2 min for R-SADI-S and L-SADI-S, respectively, p = 0.107). Robotic surgeries were associated with higher costs (8134.6 ± 1886.7 and 2386.7 ± 388.2 € in R-RYGB and L-RYGB, respectively; 7996.6 ± 873.1 and 3954.6 ± 631.1 € in R-SADI-S and L-SADI-S). Despite increased costs, robotic approach may represent an added value in more complex cases such as SSO patients.

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastric bypass in bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis on perioperative outcomes

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted surgery has emerged as a compelling approach to bariatric surgery. However, current literature has not consistently demonstrated superior outcomes to laparoscopic bariatric surgery to justify its higher cost. With its mechanical advantages, the potential gains from the robotic surgical platform are likely to be apparent in more complex cases such as gastric bypass, especially revisional cases.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the literature and evaluate the peri-operative outcomes of patients with obesity undergoing robotic gastric bypass versus laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery.

SETTING

Systematic review.

METHODS

A literature search of Embase, Medline, Pubmed, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies comparing outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic gastric bypass for obesity were included.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight eligible studies comprised a total of 82,155 patients; 9051 robotic bypass surgery (RBS) versus 73,104 laparoscopic bypass surgery (LBS) were included. All included studies compared Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. RBS was noted to have higher reoperation rate within 30 days (4.4% versus 3.4%; odds ratio 1.31 [95% CI, 1.04-1.66]; P = .027; I2 = 43.5%) than LBS. All other endpoints measured (complication rate, anastomotic leak, anastomotic stricture, surgical site infections, hospital readmission, length of stay, operative time, conversion rate and mortality) did not show any difference between RBS and LBS.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in key outcome measures in robotic versus laparoscopic gastric bypass. RBS was associated with a slightly higher reoperation rate and there was no reduction in overall complication rate with the use of robotic platform.

Robotic versus laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

In recent years, the need for revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) procedures has experienced a noteworthy surge to confront complexities and weight recidivism. Despite being a subject of controversy for many, the utilization of the Da Vinci robotic platform (Intuitive Surgical, Inc.) may present benefits in RBS. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of robotic RBS in comparison to Laparoscopic RBS.

Methods

A meticulous and thorough analysis was ensured through a comprehensive exploration of the literature, which included PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane. This exploration was conducted in adherence to the directives outlined in the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for quality assessment.

Results

A total of 11 studies were included in this meta-analysis, comprising 55,889 in the laparoscopic group and 5,809 in the robotic group. No significant differences were observed in the leak, bleeding, operative time, or length of stay across both groups. However, the robotic group showed higher rates of conversion to open surgery (odds ratio [OR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.79; p < 0.0001; I2 = 0%), reoperation (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87; p = 0.0009; I2 = 6%), and readmission (higher rate of readmission in the robotic group; OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.62-0.92; p = 0.005; I2 = 30%).

Conclusion

Robotic-assisted bariatric surgery has no significant advantage over conventional laparoscopic surgery. Further research is warranted to explore and evaluate surgeons' methodology and proficiency differences.

Experience of Robotic Complex Revisional Bariatric Surgery in a High-Volume Center

PURPOSE

A revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) is necessary in about 28% of the patients. The role of robotic surgery in RBS is still a subject of debate. We aim to report the outcomes of robotic-assisted RBS at our institution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified patients who underwent robotic-assisted RBSs between January 1, 2016, and May 31, 2022. We analyzed patient demographics and indications for surgery. Measured outcomes included peri- and postoperative morbidity, comorbidity management, and weight loss outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 106 patients were included. Primary procedures were adjustable gastric band 44 (41.5%), sleeve gastrectomy 42 (39.6%), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) 18 (17%), duodenal switch (DS) 1 (0.9%), and vertical banded gastroplasty 1 (0.9%). RBSs performed included 85 (78.7%) RYGB, 16 (14.8%) redo-gastrojejunostomy, and 5 (4.6%) DS. The median time to revision was 8 (range 1-36) years, and the main indication was insufficient weight loss (49%). Median length of hospital stay was 2 (range 1-16) days, and 9 (8.5%) patients were readmitted during the first 30 days. Only 4 (3.7%) patients had early Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher adverse events. No anastomotic leaks were documented. Median excess weight loss was 35.1%, 42.23%, and 45.82% at the 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up. Of 57 patients with hypertension, 29 (50.9%) reduced their medication dosage, and 20/27 (74.1%) reduced their diabetes mellitus medication dosage. Finally, of the 75 patients with symptoms, 64 (85.3%) reported an improvement after the RBS.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted RBS is feasible, significantly improves patients' comorbidities and symptoms, and leads to considerable weight loss.

Changes in utilization of robotic bariatric surgery and effect on patient outcomes from 2015-2020

Robotic surgery is an increasingly popular alternative to laparoscopy for performing bariatric operations. To describe changes in utilization and complication rates of this technique over the last six years an analysis of the 2015-2020 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program participant use files (MBSAQIP PUF) was performed. All patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic bariatric surgery from 2015 to 2020 were included. 1,341,814 robotic and laparoscopic bariatric operations were included. Both the number and proportion performed robotically increased from 2015 (n = 9866, 5.87%) to 2019 (n = 54,356, 13.16%). In 2020, although the number of cases decreased, the proportion performed robotically still increased (17.37%). Yet, there has been no significant change in 30 day risk of death (p = 0.946) or infection (p = 0.721). In fact, the risk of any complication has decreased from 8.21% in 2015 to 6.43% in 2020 (p = 0.001). Robotic cases are being increasingly performed on high-risk patients with 77.06% of patients being American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class 3 or higher in 2015 versus 81.03% (p = 0.001) in 2020. Robotic cases are also more likely to be revision operations than laparoscopic cases (12.16% vs 11.4%, p = 0.001). From 2015 to 2020 robotic bariatric surgery became more prevalent yet both complication rates and length of operation decreased suggesting it is an increasingly safe option. The risk of robotic complications remains higher than laparoscopy, however there are significant differences in the patient populations suggesting there may be specific patients and/or operations in which robotic bariatric surgery is being used.

Robotic Primary and Revisional Hiatal Hernia Repair is Safe and Associated with Favorable Perioperative Outcomes: A Single Institution Experience

Background: Robotic hiatal hernia (HH) repair has been demonstrated to be feasible and safe. Recent conflicting reports have emerged on the higher incidence of perioperative complications with robotic HH repair when compared with laparoscopic repair. Materials and Methods: A retrospective review of a prospective database at an academic medical center for all robotic HH repairs performed by a high-volume foregut surgeon from 2018 to 2021 was performed. Outcome measures included operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), conversion rate, need for esophageal lengthening procedure, intra- and perioperative complications, and 30-day in-hospital mortality. Results: One hundred four patients were included in the analysis. Fifteen percent of patients had a type I HH, 2% had a type II, 73% had a type III, and 10% had a type IV HH. Eighty-four percent of cases were primary and 16% were revisional. Fifty-four percent of patients had mesh placed and 4.4% had an esophageal lengthening procedure. Mean EBL was 15 mL and mean operative time was 151 minutes. Median LOS was 2 days (interquartile range 1-2 days). There were zero conversions. Intraoperative complication rate was 1% and 30-day complication rate was 4%. The 30-day in-hospital mortality was zero. Conclusion: In this retrospective analysis of 114 consecutive robotic HH repairs performed, with 83% type III or IV HHs and 16% revisional hiatal cases, our results demonstrate favorable perioperative outcomes, with lower EBL, shorter LOS, lower complication rate, zero conversions, and comparable operative times compared with historical laparoscopic data.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: laparoscopic vs. robot assisted

There is controversy over the possible advantages of the robotic technology in revisional bariatric surgery. The aim of this study is to report the experience of a high-volume bariatric center on revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass with robot-assisted (R-rRYGB) and laparoscopic (L-rRYGB) approaches, with regards to operative outcomes and costs. Patients who underwent R-rRYGB and L-rRYGB between 2008 and 2021 were included. Patients' baseline characteristics and perioperative data were recorded. The primary endpoint was the overall postoperative morbidity. A full economic evaluation was performed. One-way and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed on laparoscopic anastomotic leak and reoperation rates. A total of 194 patients were included: 44 (22.7%) L-rRYGB and 150 (77.3%) R-rRYGB. The robotic approach was associated with lower overall complication rate (10% vs. 22.7%, p = 0.038), longer operative time, and a reduced length of stay compared to L-rRYGB. R-rRYGB was more expensive than L-rRYGB (mean difference 2401.1€, p < 0.001). The incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) was 18,906.3€/complication and the incremental cost-utility ratio was 48,022.0€/QALY (quality-adjusted life years), that is below the willingness-to-pay threshold. Decision tree analysis showed that L-rRYGB was the most cost-effective strategy in the base-case scenario; a probability of leak ≥ 13%, or a probability of reoperation ≥ 14% following L-rRYGB, or a 12.7% reduction in robotic costs would be required for R-rRYGB to become the most cost-effective strategy. R-rRYGB was associated with higher costs than L-rRYGB in our base-case scenario. However, it is an acceptable alternative from a cost-effectiveness perspective.

Assessment of predictors of early postoperative complications after primary robotically assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a multicenter, retrospective cohort study

Background

Robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RRYGB) is performed in an increasing number of bariatric centers worldwide. Previous studies have identified a number of demographic and clinical variables as predictors of postoperative complications after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). Some authors have suggested better early postoperative outcomes after RRYGB compared to LRYGB. The objective of the present study was to assess potential predictors of early postoperative complications after RRYGB.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of two prospective databases containing patients who underwent RRYGB between 2006 and 2019 at two high volumes, accredited bariatric centers was performed. Primary outcome was rate of 30 day postoperative complications. Relevant demographic, clinical and biological variables were entered in a multivariate, logistic regression analysis to identify potential predictors.

Results

Data of 1276 patients were analyzed, including 958 female and 318 male patients. Rates of overall and severe 30 day complications were 12.5% (160/1276) and 3.9% (50/1276), respectively. Rate of 30 day reoperations was 1.6% (21/1276). The overall gastrointestinal leak rate was 0.2% (3/1276). Among various demographic, clinical and biological variables, male sex and ASA score >2 were significantly correlated with an increased risk of 30 day complication rates on multivariate analysis (OR 1.68 and 1.67, p=0.005 and 0.005, respectively).

Conclusion

This study identified male sex and ASA score >2 as independent predictors of early postoperative complications after RRYGB. These data suggest a potentially different risk profile in terms of early postoperative complications after RRYGB compared to LYRGB. The robotic approach might have a benefit for patients traditionally considered to be at higher risk of complications after LRYGB, such as those with BMI >50. The present study was however not designed to assess this hypothesis and larger, prospective studies are necessary to confirm these results.

Predictors of morbidity in revisional bariatric surgery and bariatric emergencies at an MBSAQIP-accredited community hospital

INTRODUCTION

Bariatric surgery revisions and emergencies are associated with higher morbidity and mortality compared to primary bariatric surgery. No formal outcome benchmarks exist that distinguish MBSAQIP-accredited centers in the community from unaccredited institutions.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted on 53 bariatric surgery revisions and 61 bariatric surgical emergencies by a single surgeon at a high-volume community hospital accredited program from 2018 to 2020. Primary outcomes were complications or deaths occurring within 30-days of the index procedure. Secondary outcomes included operative time, leaks, surgical site occurrences (SSOs), and deep surgical site infections.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the demographic characteristics of the study groups. Mean operative time was significantly longer for revisions as compared to emergency operations (149.5 vs. 89.4 min). Emergencies had higher surgical site infection (5.7% vs. 21.3%, p < 0.05) and surgical site occurrence (SSO) (1.9% vs. 29.5%, p < 0.05) rates compared to revisions. Logistic regression analysis identified several factors to be predictive of increased risk of morbidity: pre-operative albumin < 3.5 g/dL (p < 0.05), recent bariatric procedure within the last 30 days (p < 0.05), prior revisional bariatric surgery (p < 0.05), prior duodenal switch (p < 0.05), and pre-operative COPD (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Bariatric surgery revisions and emergencies have similar morbidity and mortality, far exceeding those of the primary operation. Outcomes comparable to those reported by urban academic centers can be achieved in community hospital MBSAQIP-accredited centers.

Establishing robotic bariatric surgery at an academic tertiary hospital: a learning curve analysis for totally robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

The use of robotic systems in bariatric surgery has constantly increased over the last years. However, beside its technical advantages in morbidly obese patients the conclusive role of robotics in bariatric and metabolic surgery is still under controversial debate. This is an analysis of prospectively collected data of consecutive patients undergoing fully robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypasses (TR-RYGB) during the first year after implementation of a robotic bariatric program at a tertiary university hospital. All patients were operated by a previously untrained robotic but experienced laparoscopic bariatric surgeon using the daVinci Xi system (Intuitive Surgical, Sarl). Data recording included patient characteristics, operative and functional outcomes, complications and learning curves for surgeon and assistants. In total, 80 patients underwent primary or revisional robotic bariatric surgery. Seventy-two patients (90%) received a TR-RYGB. There were no major complications, re-interventions or readmissions. The overall complication rate was 2.5% (Clavien-Dindo grade I and II). The overall operation time was 140.7 ± 24.6 min and decreased significantly from the first to the last decade of procedures (procedure 1-10: 171.2 ± 26.3 min versus procedure 63-72: 116.0 ± 10.9 min, p < 0.0001). A stabilization of the learning curve was observed after 30 procedures for the surgeon and after five procedures for the bedside assistant. With immediate effect, TR-RYGB is a safe procedure with low complication rates for an experienced laparoscopic bariatric surgeon without prior robotic skills. Learning curves are steep and operation times can be effectively decreased by increasing the experience of the surgeon.

Australian experience with robot-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass with comparison to a conventional laparoscopic series

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is a novel approach to abdominal surgery. In Australia, the uptake of robotic assistance for bariatric surgery has been relatively slow compared to many other countries. The aim of this study is to report the first high volume experience of robotic-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery in Australia (RRYGB) and compare outcomes with a similar laparoscopic group (LRYGB).

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 100 RRYGB versus 100 LRYGB was carried out over a period of seven years performed by two surgeons. These groups were matched by revisional status. Outcomes recorded included operative times, conversion rate, hospital stay, short-term (30 days) complication rates, and long-term complication rates. Baseline comorbidities of patients were also recorded.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar except for comorbidity rates (higher in LRYGB group). The mean age was 43 (RRYGB) and 44(LRYGB) years, respectively. The mean pre-op BMI was 44.3 in the RRYGB group and 44.7 in the LRYGB group. Mean operating time in the RRYGB group was 208 min compared to 175 min in the LRYGB group. The number of patients with major complications was 1 in the robotic group versus 5 in the laparoscopic group (P: 0.2166). Minor complications were higher in the robotic group (17 vs. 5, P: 0.0054). Median length of stay of patients with RRYGB was 4 days compared to 5 days for the LRYGB group.

CONCLUSION

RRYGB has been successfully implemented in Australia with low complication rates compared to conventional laparoscopic RYGB. Operating times are longer compared to LRYGB which is consistent with most published literature. To justify increased costs generally associated with robotic surgery, better quality studies are needed to accurately assess potential cost savings with length of stay and safety benefits to patients and institutions.

Predictive Factors for Developing GERD After Sleeve Gastrectomy: Is Preoperative Endoscopy Necessary?

INTRODUCTION

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most common bariatric procedure performed in the USA. There is a concern for new gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and Barrett's esophagus after SG. Endoscopic screening before bariatric surgery is controversial. We sought to identify preoperative endoscopic factors that may predict the development of GERD after SG.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated 217 patients undergoing primary robotic-assisted SG. All patients underwent endoscopy before SG and for-cause postoperatively. Patients were followed for the development of GERD, diagnosed by either biopsy-proven reflux esophagitis or a positive esophageal pH test. Patients were separated into 2 groups: Those who developed GERD after surgery (GERD group) and those who did not (No GERD group). Patients with a positive preoperative pH test, LA Grade B or greater esophagitis, or hiatal hernia > 5 cm on preoperative endoscopy were counseled to undergo gastric bypass and excluded.

RESULTS

There were more males in the No GERD group (25.6% vs. 8.1%; p = 0.02). More patients had preoperative heartburn symptoms in the GERD group (40.5% vs. 23.9%; p = 0.04). Endoscopically identified esophagitis was more common in the GERD group (29.7% vs. 13.3%; p = 0.01), as was biopsy-proven esophagitis (24.3% vs. 11.1%; p = 0.03). There was no significant difference in the incidence or size of hiatal hernia or in the rate of H. pylori infection between the groups. On multivariate analysis, the strongest predictors of GERD after SG were endoscopically identified esophagitis (odds ratio [OR] 2.79; 95% confidence interval [CI]1.17-6.69; p = 0.02) and biopsy-proven esophagitis (OR 2.80; 95% CI 1.06-7.37; p = 0.04). Male patients were less likely to develop GERD after SG (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.06-0.85; p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Our findings strengthen the rationale for routine preoperative endoscopy and highlight critical clinical and endoscopic criteria that should prompt consideration of alternatives to SG for weight loss.

Minimally Invasive Revisional Bariatric Surgery in a MBSAQIP Accredited High-Volume Center

Background

With the rising number of bariatric surgeries performed annually, there has also been an increase in revisional bariatric surgeries (RBS). The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and postoperative outcomes of RBS performed with a minimally invasive approach.

Methods

Retrospective analysis on a prospectively collected database of patients who underwent minimally invasive RBS between 2012 and 2019. Primary endpoints were conversion rate, major morbidity, mortality, and 30-day reoperation rate. Comparative analysis of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) conversion to sleeve gastrectomy (SG) vs. conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) was performed.

Results

A total of 221 patients underwent minimally invasive RBS, 137 (62%) laparoscopically and 84 (38%) robotically. The most common RBS were LAGB to SG (59.3%) and LAGB to RYGB conversions (16.7%). The main indication was weight loss failure (88.7%). Conversion rate, major morbidity, and mortality were 0.9, 3.2, and 0.4%, respectively. Urgent reoperation was required in 3.2% of cases. Total weight loss at 1 and 2-years follow- were 14.3 and 17.3%, respectively. Comparative analysis of LAGB conversion to SG vs. RYGB showed similar major morbidity (SG: 2.3% vs. RYGB 0%, p = 1). Greater total weight loss was achieved in LAGB to RYGB conversions at 1-year (SG: 14.8% vs. RYGB 25.3%, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Minimally invasive RBS can be performed safely in a broad patient population with low conversion and complication rates, and improved weight loss outcomes. LAGB to RYGB conversions are associated with greater weight loss. Further randomized trials are needed to draw more conclusive recommendations.

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.

Reoperative bariatric surgery after primary laparoscopic gastric plication for morbid obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastric plication (LGP) often requires reoperative bariatric surgery (RBS) due to complications and insufficient weight loss. The aim of our study was to assess perioperative morbidity and weight loss during follow-up in patients undergoing RBS after primary LGP for morbid obesity.

METHODS

A search of PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using ("conversion"OR "revision*""OR "reoperat*")AND("gastric"OR "curvatur*")AND "plication." Studies were deemed eligible if data on RBS after LGP were provided. For each study, data were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

In the literature review, 291 articles were screened and 7 included. The studies covered a total of 367 patients, of whom 119 received a sleeve gastrectomy (SG), 85 a Roux-en-y gastric bypass (RYGB), 75 a one anastomosis-gastric bypass (OAGB), 45 a re-LGP, and 25 a jejuno-ileal bypass. After RBS, excess weight loss was 50.8 ± 6.5% at 6 months, 71.0 ± 7.7% at 12 months, and 89.0 ± 7.8% at 24 months. Operative time was 101.3 ± 14.6 min. Postoperatively, 18/255 patients (7.1%) had a complication, and leakage and reoperations were reported in 6/255 (2.4%) and 5/255 (2.0%) patients, respectively. Length of hospital stay was 3.1 ± 2.4 days. The quality of evidence was rated as "very low."

CONCLUSIONS

Despite limitations, this systematic review and meta-analysis showed that RBS after LGP has an acceptable rate of complications and is effective in terms of excess weight loss during follow-up. No specific operation (e.g., SG, RYGB, OAGB) can be suggested over another due to the lack of evidence.

The Role of Robotic Visceral Surgery in Patients with Adhesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abdominal adhesions are a risk factor for conversion to open surgery. An advantage of robotic surgery is the lower rate of unplanned conversions. A systematic review was conducted using the terms "laparoscopic" and "robotic". Inclusion criteria were: comparative studies evaluating patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic surgery; reporting data on conversion to open surgery for each group due to adhesions and studies including at least five patients in each group. The main outcomes were the conversion rates due to adhesions and surgeons' expertise (novice vs. expert). The meta-analysis included 70 studies from different surgical specialities with 14,329 procedures (6472 robotic and 7857 laparoscopic). The robotic approach was associated with a reduced risk of conversion (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.12-2.10, p = 0.007). The analysis of the procedures performed by "expert surgeons" showed a statistically significant difference in favour of robotic surgery (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.03-2.12, p = 0.03). A reduced conversion rate due to adhesions with the robotic approach was observed in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.20-5.72, p = 0.02). The robotic approach could be a valid option in patients with abdominal adhesions, especially in the subgroup of those undergoing colorectal cancer resection performed by expert surgeons.

Robotic-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Revisional Bariatric Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis on Perioperative Outcomes

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the role of robotic-assisted surgery in patients undergoing revisional bariatric surgery (RBS). According to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was performed: (("sleeve"AND "gastr*")OR "bariatric"OR "gastric bypass")AND("robot*"OR "DaVinci"OR "Da Vinci")AND("revision*"OR "conversion*"). In this review, six studies with 29,890 patients were included (2459 in the robotic group). No difference in postoperative complications (RR 1.070, 95%CI 0.930-1.231, p = 0.950), conversions to open surgery (RR 1.339, 95%CI 0.736-2.438, p = 0.339), length of stay (SMD - 0.041, 95%CI - 0.420-0.337, p = 0.831) or operative time (RR 0.219, 95%CI - 0.539-0.977, p = 0.571) was found. This systematic review and meta-analysis showed no significant advantage of robotic-assisted RBS; on the other hand, it showed a non-inferior efficacy compared to standard laparoscopy.

Outcomes of Bariatric Surgery: Patients with Body Mass Index 60 or Greater

Introduction:

Perioperative outcomes of bariatric surgery in patients with super super obesity (SSO) (BMI ≥ 60 kg/m²) merit further investigation.

Methods:

A retrospective review was conducted of patients with SSO who underwent surgery from Jun 2005 through Jun 2018 at a Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Center of Excellence. Quantitative demographic data was summarized using descriptive statistics; categorical variables were compared using Fisher’s exact test.

Results:

Two hundred fourteen procedures were performed, of which 208 were eligible for inclusion. Majority were female (65.4%). The mean age and BMI was 43 (17–68 years) and 65.9 kg/m² (60 95 kg/m²), respectively. Comorbidities included: obstructive sleep apnea (74%), hypertension (59%), gastro-esophageal reflux disease (43%), osteoarthritis (41%), and diabetes mellitus (30%). Surgical approach: 97 Roux-en-Y gastric bypasses (46%), 88 laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomies (42%), and 23 adjustable gastric bands (11%). Additional subset included: primary (87%), conversion (7.7%), and revision (5.3%); majority being laparoscopic (75%) and robotic (24%). Complications via Clavien-Dindo classification: one Grade I, one Grade II, three Grade IIIa, three Grade IIIb, and three Grade IVa. Thirty-day events: 11 complications (5.3%; one leak [0.5%], one deep vein thrombosis [0.5%]), six re-admissions (3%), four re-operations (2%): repair of staple-line leak, repair of incisional hernia, uterine dilation and curettage, and cholecystectomy. No mortalities occurred. Complications occurred in 14.8% of conversion/revision cases, 3.9% in primary cases (p = 0.0395) with no difference observed between laparoscopic (4.5%) and robotic (6.1%) modalities (p = 0.7051).

Conclusion:

Bariatric surgery is feasible in patients with SSO. Revision procedures may increase risk of operative complications.

Understanding the Current Role of Robotic-Assisted Bariatric Surgery

BACKGROUND

The role of robotic surgery in bariatrics remains controversial. Patient selection for robotic surgery is not well-studied. The objective of this study was to identify factors associated with robotic surgery and its temporal trends.

METHODS

The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database from 2015 to 2018 was used. Adult patients undergoing primary sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) using the laparoscopic or robotic approach were identified. Revisional, hybrid, or those with concomitant procedures were excluded. Logistic regression was conducted to identify factors associated with undergoing robotic-assisted surgery.

RESULTS

Among 211,568 patients who underwent SG, 9.1% underwent a robotic SG; among 76,805 patients who underwent RYGB, 7.9% of patients underwent a robotic RYGB. During 2015-2018, robotics increased from 7.1 to 11.3% for SG and 7.4 to 8.6% for RYGB. After controlling for patient characteristics, there was still an increasing trend in the use of robotic surgery: SG (multivariable-adjusted odds ratio, aOR, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, CI, 1.17-1.20) and RYGB (aOR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.03-1.08). For both robotic SG and RYGB, functional status and African American race were associated with undergoing robotic surgery, while races other than White or African American and Hispanic ethnicity were not. Pre-operative IVC filter was associated with robotic SG, while the presence of GERD, diabetes, and COPD were associated with robotic RYGB.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic bariatric surgery has increased over time. Our findings identified factors associated with the receipt of robotic surgery. Reasons for these factors require further investigation to better delineate indications for this technology.

Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Following Failed Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding-a Comparison Between One- and two-Stage Procedures, an Israeli National Database Study

PURPOSE

The optimal revisional bariatric surgery procedure following a previous failed gastric band surgery is yet to be determined. The aim of our study was to compare single- and two-stage laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) following laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) in terms of short- and mid-term outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent LSG after a failed LAGB in Israel during 2014-2017 were included. Data were obtained from the Israeli National Bariatric Surgery Registry. Data analyzed included comorbidities, postoperative complications, and anthropometric outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 595 patients included in the data analysis, 381 (64%) underwent one-stage and 214 (36%) had two-stage LSG. No differences were observed between the groups in complication rates (5.0 vs. 5.1%, p=0.93). Percent of total weight loss was lower following one-stage than two-stage procedure at both 6 months (19.3±9.3 vs. 21.5±8.1%; p=0.02) and 1 year postoperative (24.9±10.4 vs. 27.8±9.9%; p=0.02). No difference was observed in the percent excess weight loss (51 vs. 56%; p=0.34 and 66 vs. 72%; p=0.38, at 6 months and 12 months postoperative, respectively). In a regression analysis, percent excess weight loss was greater in the two-stage procedure (p=0.02), with no difference in the complication rates (p=0.98).

CONCLUSION

Single-step LSG had a similar safety profile as two-stage LSG following a failed LAGB. Better weight loss was seen following two-stage LSG. Further prospective studies should investigate long-term follow-up after one- and two-stage procedure.

Laparoscopic Revision for Gastric Clipping: a Single Center Experience and Taiwan Database Review

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic gastric clipping (LGC) is a relatively novel restrictive bariatric surgery wherein a horizontal metallic clip is applied to the gastric fundus. Its intraoperative complications or the difficulties associated with the applied gastric clip (GC) during revisional procedures have seldom been mentioned. Herein, the experience of revisional procedures after initial gastric clipping is reported.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort review of LGC based on the Taiwan Bariatric Registry of Taiwan Society Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery was performed. Six patients with severe obesity presented for revisional surgery after initial LGC by other surgeons. Patients' characteristics, indications, and details of revisional surgery were recorded.

RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2019, 39 patients who underwent pure LGC and six patients with previous LGC history were referred for revisional surgery. Their mean age and the mean body mass index were 34.7 ± 9.5 years and 38.4 ± 10.5 kg/m², respectively. Three, two, and one patient underwent revisional surgery for insufficient weight loss, weight recidivism, and intractable belching, respectively. The mean interval between initial LGC and revisional surgery was 40.5 ± 22.4 months. Laparoscopic removal of the GC with concomitant revisional surgeries were collected, including a revision to sleeve gastrectomy (n = 5) and revision to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (n = 1). Moreover, the mean operative time was 286.8 ± 78.2 min. All patients had uneventful recovery postoperatively but experienced significant adhesion around the GC and the left liver.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic revisional surgery with concomitant GC removal for patients with severe obesity after gastric clipping could be feasibly conducted by experienced bariatric surgeons.

Intraoperative conversion and complications in robotic assisted primary and redo gastric bypass surgery

The rise of robotic assisted surgery in the treatment of morbidly obese patients has enlarged the armamentarium for surgeons involved in bariatric surgery. This in particular is of great advantage not only in primary cases, but also in patients undergoing revisional procedures following preceding upper GI surgery. In the following, our experience with intraoperative conversions and complications in revisional robotic surgery using the Da Vinci robotic system will be reported and compared to primary robotic bypass surgery and the literature. In a 36-month period, a total of 157 minimally invasive bariatric procedures (48 robotic assisted, 109 laparoscopic) were performed. Out of 43 patients receiving a gastric bypass 32 (74%) were performed robotically. Out of these 20 (62.5%) had previous operations (RRBP): one hiatal mesh repair, one open Mason operation, eight gastric band, nine gastric sleeve, one sleeve with fundoplication. The Da Vinci Xi was used for all surgeries. 3/20 (15%) RRBP were converted to open laparotomy because of a huge left liver lobe (1), extreme adhesions (1) and short mesentery (1) (p = 0.631 vs 1/12 RBP). One out of these had to be reoperated for an insufficiency of the gastroenterostomy. 3/17 (23%) patients (RRBP) without conversion had complications: hemorrhage (1), insufficiency of biliodigestive anastomosis (1), insufficiency of gastroenterostomy (1). There was no mortality and length of hospital stay was 3.5 days in uncomplicated cases and 12.3 days in complicated cases (p < 0.05). This preliminary experience suggests, that robotic revisional surgery can be performed safely even in complicated cases. Conversion to laparoscopic or open surgery may be required when adverse anatomical conditions are present. However, the incidence of complications was not increased when conversion was performed. In this series, the incidence of complications was not greater in case of revisional surgery.

Revisional Bariatric Surgery

Revisional bariatric surgery is a growing subset of all bariatric procedures. Although revisions can be associated with higher morbidity rates and less optimal outcomes than those seen with primary procedures, they can be safely performed, with excellent outcomes and improved quality of life for patients. Facility and familiarity with revisional principles and techniques are necessary components of bariatric surgical practice.

Role of Robotic Surgery in Complex Revisional Bariatric Procedures

PURPOSE

Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) is becoming more common, with an estimated increase of more than 300% from 2017 to 2018. For these complex procedures, the role of robotics is still debated. The purpose of our study is to report the safety and effectiveness of robotic-assisted RBSs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of electronic medical records was conducted for robotic-assisted RBSs performed at the Mayo Clinic in Florida, between January 1, 2016, and January 1, 2020. Peri- and postoperative data were analyzed, reviewing patient characteristics, indications for surgery, and outcomes.

RESULTS

From 160 RBSs performed during the study period, 67 were robotic-assisted and met inclusion criteria. Primary procedures included sleeve gastrectomy (26 [38.8%]), adjustable gastric band (24 [35.8%]), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (14 [20.9%]), vertical-banded gastroplasty (2 [3.0%]), and duodenal switch (1 [1.5%]). RBSs performed were Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (49 [73.1%]), redo gastrojejunostomy (14 [20.9%]), and duodenal switch (4 [6.0%]). Rate of conversion to open procedure and rate of readmission 1 month after surgery were 6.0% and 7.5%, respectively. Rate of 30-day Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher adverse events was 4.5%. No anastomotic leaks were documented. Fifty-two patients presented with preoperative symptoms, and 69.2% reported improvement after RBS. Mean (SD) excess weight loss was 57.62% (23.80) 12 months after RBS.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted RBSs are safe with low major adverse event rates. Symptom resolution and weight loss outcomes are acceptable.

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.

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.

Outcomes of primary versus revisional robotically assisted laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a multicenter analysis of ten-year experience

Background

Postoperative morbidity after laparoscopic bariatric surgery is considered higher for patients undergoing revisional versus primary procedures. The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to compare outcomes between patients undergoing primary versus revisional robotically assisted laparoscopic (RAL) Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB).

Methods

Data of all patients who underwent RAL primary and revisional RYGB between 2009 and 2019 at two accredited, high-volume bariatric surgery centers—the Memorial Hermann – Texas Medical Center, Houston, TX, and the Tower Health, Reading Hospital, Reading, PA, were analyzed. Primary outcomes were early (< 30 days) and overall postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative complications, operative times, conversions to laparotomy, length of hospital stay, early (< 30 days) postoperative readmissions and deaths.

Results

Data of 1072 patients were analyzed, including 806 primary and 266 revisional RAL RYGB procedures. Longer operative times (203 versus 154 min, P < 0.001), increased number of readmissions for oral intolerance (10.5% versus 6.7%, P = 0.046) and higher rate of gastrojejunal stricture (6.4% versus 2.7%, P = 0.013) were found in the revisional group. Gastrointestinal leak rates were 0.2% for the primary versus 1.1% for the revisional group (P = 0.101). Early (< 30 days) reoperations rates were 2.2% for the primary versus 1.1% for the revisional group (P = 0.318). There were no statistically significant differences between groups in overall and severe complication rates.

Conclusion

Patients undergoing RAL primary and revisional RYGB had comparable overall outcomes, with a non-significant higher early complication rate in the revisional group. Despite the study being underpowered to detect differences in specific complication rates, the morbidity seen in the revisional RYGB group remains markedly below literature reports of revisional laparoscopic RYGB and might suggest a benefit of robotic assistance. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these results.

Robotic-assisted approaches to GERD following sleeve gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most common bariatric operation in the United States but increases the incidence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The aim of our study was to describe our experience with robotic-assisted management of intractable GERD after SG.

METHODS

A systematic review of a prospectively maintained database was performed of consecutive patients undergoing robotic-assisted magnetic sphincter augmentation placement after sleeve gastrectomy (MSA-S group) or conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB group) for GERD from 2015 to 2019 at our tertiary- care bariatric center. These were compared to a consecutive group of patients undergoing robotic-assisted magnetic sphincter augmentation placement (MSA group) for GERD without a history of bariatric surgery from 2016 to 2019. The primary outcome was perioperative morbidity. Secondary outcomes were operative time (OT), 90-day re-intervention rate, length of stay, symptom resolution and weight change.

RESULTS

There were 51 patients included in this study; 18 patients in the MSA group, 13 patients in the MSA-S group, and 20 patients in the RYGB group. There was no significant difference in age, gender, ASA score, preoperative endoscopic findings, or DeMeester scores (P > 0.05). BMI was significantly higher in patients undergoing RYGB compared to MSA or MSA-S (P < 0.0001). There were significant differences in OT between the MSA and RYGB groups (P < 0.0001) and MSA-S and RYGB groups (P = 0.009), but not MSA group to MSA-S group (P = 0.51). There was no significant difference in intraoperative and postoperative morbidity (P = 1.0 and P = 0.60, respectively). 30-day morbidity: 5.6% (MSA), 15.4% (MSA-S) and 15% (RYGB). There was no difference on PPI discontinuation among groups, with more than 80% success rate in all.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the robotic platform in the different approaches available for treatment of GERD after SG appears to be a feasible option with low morbidity and high success rate. Further data is needed to support our findings.

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.

Feasibility and safety of robot-assisted bariatric conversions and revisions

BACKGROUND

Conversions and revisions after bariatric procedures are inevitable and associated with longer operative time and higher complication rates. Because robot-assisted procedures allow better dissection, robotic conversions and revisions may be more beneficial to the patients than laparoscopic ones.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the feasibility and safety of robot-assisted conversions and revisions to laparoscopic procedures.

SETTING

Academic Hospital, United States.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed on 94 consecutive patients who underwent a bariatric conversion or revision (revision of gastrojejunostomy, conversions of vertical sleeve gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, adjustable gastric banding to sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass to sleeve gastrectomy, adjustable gastric banding to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass to duodenal switch, and adjustable gastric banding to duodenal switch) between January 1, 2017, and February 28, 2019. Of these, 30 underwent a robot-assisted conversion or revision.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent a robot-assisted approach were more likely to be older (45.4-versus 38.8-yr old) and lighter (44.6 versus 50.3 kg/m²) than patients who underwent a laparoscopic approach. The mean operative time was longer in the robot-assisted group (155.5 min) than in the laparoscopic group (113.3 min). No difference was observed between the 2 groups in the mean length of hospital stay, 30-day readmission rate, or 30-day reoperation rate. Results were similar when the baseline difference in age and body mass index were accounted for.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted conversions and revisions were as feasible and safe as laparoscopic procedures. However, operative time was longer in robot-assisted conversions.

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.

Value of robotic-assisted technique in redo gastrojejunostomy for severe stenosis after gastric bypass

Development of gastrojejunal stricture following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) leads to an increase in morbidity and adverse effects, such as abdominal pain, vomiting, aspiration pneumonia, and malnutrition. Up to 38.5% of patients will require revisional surgery for late anastomotic strictures despite conservative treatment. However, no previous studies focused on revisional robotic bariatric surgery due to strictures after RYGB have been reported. To evaluate our outcomes and assess the advantages of the robotic platform with regard to laparoscopic and open revisional procedures. University Hospital. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent laparoscopic robotic-assisted redo gastrojejunostomy from 2016 to 2018. Demographics, surgical data, medical treatments, postoperative outcomes, and adverse effects were collected. Nine patients with symptomatic anastomotic strictures after primary RYGB underwent robotic revisional surgery. All patients received medical therapy as a first approach, and five patients (55.5%) underwent endoscopic balloon dilation. All procedures were successfully completed with robotic assistance, with a mean (standard deviation) operative time of 184.5 (49.1) min, and no intraoperative adverse effects were registered. Median (range) hospital stay was 2 (1-4) days. One patient presented with a postoperative intra-abdominal abscess and was treated with intravenous antibiotics and image-guided drainage. No anastomotic leak, hemorrhage, or mortality were reported. Robotic assistance seems to be safe and effective for redo gastrojejunostomy secondary to stricture. Even though the sample size is small, we believe that the application of robotic techniques may provide advantages and improve the outcomes in these complex revisional procedures.

[Minimally invasive robot-assisted gastric bypass after open Mason reduction gastroplasty]

BACKGROUND

The introduction of robot-assisted surgery in the treatment of morbidly obese patients has enlarged the armamentarium for surgeons involved in bariatric surgery. This article describes the experiences with a conversion surgery from a complicated open Mason gastroplasty to a Roux en Y gastric bypass using the da Vinci Xi robotic system.

CASE

A 29-year-old female patient underwent a Mason reduction gastroplasty by laparotomy in 1995 (body mass index BMI 53.2 kg/m²). The course was complicated with a revision due to abscess formation and subsequent secondary healing. In 1996 an open revision of the gastroplasty due to persisting gastroesophageal reflux disease and outlet stenosis with dilatation of the outlet and an open cholecystectomy for cholecystolithiasis were performed . Abdominoplasty was performed for skin flaps in 2001 after the patient had lost 68 kg in weight. The patient presented at our hospital because of insufficient weight reduction even with weight gain since 2001 and treatment-refractive gastroesophageal reflux with adhesion problems. Clinical examination revealed normal scar tissue formation with no indications for an incisional hernia. The BMI was 48.2 kg/m² with a body weight of 124 kg. The surgery was performed using a da Vinci Xi robotic system after access via a blunt dissection with the introduction of two trocars and adhesiolysis. The gastric pouch was created using Echelon 60 mm cartridges via an additional trocar. The gastroenterostomy was constructed with a 150 cm alimentary loop and a 60 cm biliodigestive loop resulting in a Roux en Y bypass. The operating time was 224 min.

RESULTS

The postoperative course was uneventful. Enteral nutrition was resumed on day 2 and the patient was discharged from the hospital 4 days postoperation.

CONCLUSION

This preliminary experience suggests that robotic revisional surgery can be performed safely even after complicated bariatric operations.

Perioperative outcomes and anesthetic considerations of robotic bariatric surgery in a propensity-matched cohort of super obese and super-super obese patients

BACKGROUND

The use of the robotic platform has not been well established in patients with super obesity (SO; body mass index, BMI ≥ 50) and super-super obesity (SSO, BMI ≥ 60). We aimed to determine safety and feasibility of robotic bariatric surgery in this cohort.

METHODS

Review of a prospectively maintained database was performed of consecutive patients undergoing robotic bariatric surgery between 2015 and 2017. Propensity score analysis with 1:2 nearest neighbor matching was performed to control for baseline characteristics and procedure type.

RESULTS

A propensity-matched cohort of 47 SO patients (median BMI 55.3, range 50.1-92.5) and 94 morbidly obese (MO; median BMI 41.8, range 35.1-48.8) patients were analyzed. After matching, there were no difference in baseline characteristics including age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, or preoperative comorbidities. Most patients in each group underwent sleeve gastrectomy (81% of SO patients versus 76% of MO patients) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (13% vs. 18%, respectively), p = 0.66. There were no differences in operative time, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, or re-admissions between groups. Length of stay was slightly longer in the MO group (2.2 days, IQR 1.8-3.2 vs. 1.8 days, IQR 1.2-2.7; p = 0.01). A subset of SSO patients (n = 11, median BMI 67, range 60-92) was analyzed; there was no increase in operation time, and zero intraoperative complications, conversions to open, or postoperative complications in this subset.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic bariatric surgery can safely be performed on patients with SO or SSO with low perioperative morbidity and no increase in operating time.