Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, Outcomes over 5 Years in Nearly 800,000 Patients

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.

Evaluation of hemorrhage risk and the volume-outcome relationship following vertical sleeve gastrectomy amidst robotic-assisted surgery adoption

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) holds promise for maintaining bariatric outcomes, while offering a shorter adoption learning curve relative to conventional laparoscopy. However, low RAS procedure volume relative to a laparoscopic approach has limited our understanding of its impact, and the transition from laparoscopic to RAS entails a volume-outcome relationship that is not fully characterized.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study in a MBSAQIP accredited, bariatric surgery program. The incidence of hemorrhage following vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG) was observed from 2020 to 2023. This period was divided into an early adoption period (RAS 31% of cases) and a late adoption period (RAS 82% of cases).

RESULTS

A total of 1250 patients underwent VSG over the study period. Laparoscopic VSG (L-VSG) and robotic-assisted VSG (RA-VSG) groups were similar in age, sex, and risk factors for postoperative bleeding. They differed in race (P < 0.0001) and ASA category (P = 0.007). The overall postoperative hemorrhage rate was 1.04% (n = 13). Hyperlipidemia was predictive of hemorrhage on univariate analysis (P = 0.045). The relative risk of hemorrhage in the robotic group dropped from 4.38 (CI 0.577-3.24) during the early adoption period to 0.28 (CI 0.083-0.96, P = 0.063) during the late adoption period. This shift with respect to hemorrhage risk was not associated with a significant reduction of hemorrhage in the RA-VSG approach (1.5% vs. 0.98%; P = 0.636), but with an increase in L-VSG risk (0.35% vs. 3.5%, P = 0.0245).

CONCLUSION

As RA-VSG became the more frequently utilized approach within a single program, the risk of hemorrhage with L-VSG significantly increased. This suggests an unanticipated risk associated with a transition to the robotic approach. Specifically, the risk of complication increased when performing L-VSG in a practice dominated by RA-VSG.

Robotic approach does not eliminate first assistant in bariatric surgery compared to laparoscopy

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG) and Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (LRYGB) constitute the most commonly performed bariatric metabolic surgery (BMS) procedures in the USA. The number of robotic-assisted BMS cases remains low, primarily due to the increased cost and extended operative time associated with this technology. Our primary objective is to assess whether robotic platform reduces the need for a surgical first assistant (FA). Our secondary objective is to compare the utilization of skilled surgical assistants.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of the MBSAQIP Participant Use File cohort spanning from 2015 to 2019 to determine the prevalence of Attending Surgeon involvement in robotic-assisted, laparoscopic RYGB, and SG procedures, in comparison to non-physician surgical First Assistants. Cases involving medical trainees (residents and fellows) were excluded from the analysis. For each bariatric procedure, we established two distinct groups and employed propensity score matching to ensure patient comparability. A "good match" was defined as a standardized mean difference (SMD) of less than 0.10. All statistical analyses were two-sided, with a significance level set at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 113,682 patients underwent LRYGB, with 12,480 undergoing robotic RYGB (RRYGB). After a 1:1 match, attending-level FAs were involved in 25.9% of LRYGB cases, mid-level FAs in 55.6%, and no assistants in 18.5%. In contrast, RRYGB cases utilized attending-level FAs in 13.7% of cases, mid-level FAs in 68.4%, and had no assistants in 17.9% of cases (P < 0.0001). In LSG, attending-level FAs were present in 28.1% of cases, mid-level FAs in 51.6%, and no assistants in 20.3%. In comparison, robotic SG (RSG) cases had attending-level FAs in 16.1%, mid-level FAs in 55.6%, and no assistants in 28.3% of cases (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The robotic platform failed to show a reduction in the need for an assistant in Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) procedures but did lead to a decrease in the number of assistants required in sleeve gastrectomy (SG). Mid-level assistance was necessary for the majority of robotic and laparoscopic bariatric metabolic cases. The robotic platform was associated with an approximate 12% reduction in the requirement for attending-level assistance in robotic procedures.

Robotic sleeve gastrectomy has higher complication rates compared to laparoscopic: 8-year analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic primary bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted bariatric surgery is growing rapidly. The optimal approach to minimize complications remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

Assess robot utilization and compare 30-day outcomes for laparoscopic and robotic primary sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) using the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database.

SETTING

United States.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the MBSAQIP database identified primary SG and RYGB cases from 2015 to 2022. Revisions/conversions, cases converted to another approach, and combined cases other than esophagogastroduodenoscopy were excluded. Outcomes were compared with logistic regression following 1:1 propensity-score matching to adjust for differences in patient demographics/comorbidities and operative variables.

RESULTS

A total of 823,902 cases (591,118 SG; 232,784 RYGB) were included. From 2015 to 2022, the percentage of SG and RYGB performed robotically increased from 6.7% and 6.9% to 29.5% and 31.8%, respectively. Compared to laparoscopic, robotic SG had significantly higher overall morbidity (odds ratio 1.14 [1.07-1.21], P < .001), leak (1.24 [1.05-1.46], P = .03), and bleeding rates (1.34 [1.13-1.58], P < .001). Robotic RYGB had significantly lower overall morbidity (.75 [.70-.81], P < .001) and bleeding (.80 [.68-.94], P < .01) with similar leak rates (.87 [.71-1.07], P = .18). Combined robotic SG and RYGB outcomes were similar to laparoscopic for 2020-2022 cases, except for higher rates of organ/space infection, readmission, and septic shock in the robotic group.

CONCLUSION

Robotic SG has higher complication rates compared to laparoscopic, while robotic RYGB is protective against bleeding complications. Short-term outcomes for robotic surgery have become more similar to laparoscopic, but remain inferior. Further studies are warranted to elucidate the factors driving these findings.

Gastric bypass performed with different surgical platforms during different periods

Robotic gastric bypass (RGB) continues to increase. However, conflicting data remain on its impact on patient-reported outcomes. We utilized the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Project (MBSAQIP) databases. Gastric bypass cases performed with laparoscopy (LGB) or robotic assistance (RGB) between 2015 and 2021 were analyzed. A 1:1 matched analysis compared outcomes between LGB and RGB performed at different time intervals (2015-2018 vs. 2091-2021). 286,531 RYGB cases (87% LGB, 13% RGB) were analyzed, yielding 25,594 matched LGB and RGB cases. Mortality was low (0.1%) and comparable between cohorts. Surgical site infection (SSI) (0.9% vs. 1.3%, p < 0.001) and bleeding (0.3% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.04) were lower with RGB; however, readmission (5.8% vs. 4.9%, p < 0.001), reoperation (2.2% vs. 1.85%, p = 0.005), and morbidity (7.6% vs. 6.8%, p < 0.001) were higher. Operative length (OL) was longer for RGB (p < 0.001). In the early cohort, SSI and bleeding (p = 0.002 and p = 0.039) were lower for RGB; however, operative duration and LOS (p < 0.001) were more extended. In the later cohort, SSI (p = 0.006) and bleeding (p = 0.046) remained lower with RGB, while morbidity was higher (p = 0.005). Mean OL narrowed but remained longer for RGB (p < 0.001), while LOS was comparable. Both RGB and LGB demonstrate safety profiles with low mortality and morbidity. With increased robotic utilization, RGB was associated with a persistently reduced incidence of SSI and bleeding but longer OL.

Racial disparities in the utilization and outcomes of robotic bariatric surgery: an 8-year analysis of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Improvement Program data

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery utilization has been increasing across surgical specialties; however, racial disparities in patient access to care and outcomes have been reported.

OBJECTIVES

In this study, we examined racial disparities in the utilization and outcomes of robotic bariatric surgery over an 8-year period.

SETTING

Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) centers of excellence across the United States.

METHODS

The MBSAQIP database was used to identify adult patients who underwent robotic bariatric surgery between 2015 and 2022. Patients were stratified according to race and ethnicity into non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black or African American (AA), Indigenous, Asian, and Hispanic patients. Multivariable analyses were used to assess predictors of robotic surgery use, odds of minor and major complications, prolonged length of stay (prolonged length of stay (pLOS): ≥3 days), readmissions, reoperations, and mortality within 30 days.

RESULTS

Out of 1,288,359 patients included, robotic surgery was utilized in 196,314 patients (15.2%), with a mean age of 44 ± 12 years and 80.6% females. Rates of robotic surgery increased to 30% by 2022. Compared to White patients, Black/AA patients were more likely to undergo robotic surgery (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.21-1.24, P < .001). The safety of robotic bariatric surgery improved for both White and Black patients with decreased odds of major complications, readmissions, reoperations, and pLOS over the study period. However, Black/AA patients were more likely to experience minor and major complications, readmissions and have pLOS compared with White patients in 2022 (aOR:1.26, 95% CI:1.19-1.34, P < .001; aOR:1.22, 95% CI:1.06-1.41, P = .006; aOR:1.44, 95% CI:1.28-1.62, P < .001; aOR:2.26, 95% CI:2.06-2.47, P < .001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The utilization of robotic bariatric surgery has increased significantly over the past 8 years with continued improvements in its safety profile. While Black/AA patients have improved access to robotic surgery, their clinical outcomes continue to be worse than those of White patients. Efforts to address racial disparities in bariatric surgery outcomes must remain a priority to achieve health equity.

Cost drivers of gastric sleeve procedures performed using robotic platform

BACKGROUND

Robotic bariatric surgery adoption rates have increased, and the higher costs associated with robotic sleeve gastrectomy (rSG) are a concern.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the factors associated with increased costs of rSG.

SETTING

US hospital database.

METHODS

Patients who underwent rSG between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2022 were extracted from PINC AI Healthcare Data. Inpatient total, variable, and fixed costs were converted to 2022 USD. Factors including patients and provider characteristics, types of staplers used (laparoscopic bedside staplers [LBS], other unspecified bedside staplers [OBS], and robotic staplers [RS]) were evaluated. Univariate and bivariate analyses were used to examine baseline balance among groups. Multivariable general linear model was used to identify cost drivers.

RESULTS

There were 27,778 patient records, of which 25.6% used LBS, 10.3% used OBS, and 64.1% were RS cases. Increased costs were driven by type of stapler, patients aged 55-64, male, non-White race, non-Medicare insurance, higher comorbidity, and disease severity, and hospitals in West region, rural, more than 500 beds, with the lower hospital and surgeon's volume. After adjusting for other cost drivers, the procedures done by LBS significantly reduced variable costs by $651 ± $86 (mean difference ± standard error) and $564 ± $54 and fixed costs by $1716 ± $62 and $2297 ± $54 compared to OBS and RS. In total, the use of LBS significantly reduced total inpatient costs by $2384 ± $118 and $2692 ± $90 compared to OBS and RS, respectively. Also, LBS had fewer blood transfusions and intensive care unit visits than OBS and RS.

CONCLUSIONS

RS and OBS were critical cost drivers in patients undergoing rSG compared to major brand bedside staplers.

First modified Delphi consensus statement on robotic-assisted da Vinci sleeve gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most commonly performed metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) procedure. Technical considerations related to the performance of SG are well established and reported in the literature but not in relation to robotic-assisted (RA) SG. We report the results of the first modified Delphi consensus-building exercise addressing technical considerations of RA da Vinci (dV) SG.

OBJECTIVES

Develop best practices for the performance of robotic-assisted da Vinci sleeve gastrectomy.

SETTING

Survey based consensus statement.

METHODS

A consensus building committee (CBC) was created comprising 10 experts in the field of RA surgery and MBS based on strict selection criteria. The CBC developed 49 consensus statements which were then shared with 240 experts in RA surgery. Our stopping criterion was stability in responses (≤15%). The consensus cut point was 70%.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 49%. In the first round of voting, there was consensus agreement on 25 statements (51%), consensus disagreement on 14 (28%), and no consensus on the remaining statements (21%). In the second round of voting, we reached agreement on 3 additional statements. Experts recommended the use of the number of pauses generated by the stapler to guide choice of staple height (91.2%) and to upsize the staple height when using buttressing (92%). There was also consensus (81.4%) that the use of the closed staple height of 1.00 mm (white) is acceptable and that stapling of the antrum using a 1.5-mm staple (blue load) is also acceptable (73%).

CONCLUSIONS

Collective expert opinion structured through a modified Delphi consensus statement presents a practical guide for surgeons interested in performing dV-SG.

Bariatric Surgery: Current Trends and Newer Surgeries

Bariatric surgery has evolved and gained in popularity as it has been recognized as the most sustainable and effective treatment for obesity and related diseases. These related diseases are significant causes of obesity related morbidity and mortality. Most bariatric procedures incorporate some component of gastric restriction with or without intestinal bypass, but the full mechanism of these procedures has yet to be elucidated. The most popular surgical procedure remains the sleeve gastrectomy over the last 10 years, while gastric bypass is also still commonly performed. We have also seen growth in revisional bariatric surgery and novel surgical procedures.

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.

Safety of Same-Day Discharge after Bariatric Surgery: Retrospective 6-Year North American Analysis

BACKGROUND

With increasing implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocols and rising demand for inpatient hospital beds accentuated by COVID-19, there has been interest in same-day discharge (SDD) for bariatric surgery. The aim of this study was to determine the national trends, safety profile, and risk factors for complications of SDD for minimally invasive bariatric surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

We analyzed the MBSAQIP database from 2016 to 2021 to characterize trends in SDD for minimally invasive bariatric operation. Multivariate logistic regression was performed on preoperative patient characteristics predictive of increased complications associated with SDD. A comparative analysis of postoperative outcomes within 30 days was performed for SDD and admission after 1:1 nearest neighbor propensity score matching for patient demographics and preoperative comorbidities.

RESULTS

SDD increased from 2.4% in 2016 to 7.4% in 2021. Major preoperative factors associated with increased complications for SDD included Black race, history of MI, renal insufficiency, deep vein thrombosis, and smoking. SDD for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass had 72% increased risk of postoperative complications compared with sleeve gastrectomy. The overall major complications were lower in SDD cohort vs admission cohort (odds ratio [OR] 0.62, p < 0.01). However, there was a significant increase in deaths within 30 days (OR 2.11, p = 0.01), cardiac arrest (OR 2.73; p < 0.01), and dehydration requiring treatment (OR 1.33; p < 0.01) in SDD cohort compared with admission cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Nationally, there has been a rise in SDD for bariatric operation from 2016 to 2021. Matched analysis demonstrates that SDD is associated with a significantly higher mortality rate. Additionally, the risk of complications with SDD is higher for RYGB compared with sleeve gastrectomy. Therefore, further studies are required to appropriately select patients for whom bariatric surgery can be safely performed as an outpatient.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for resectable gastric cancer: a randomized phase 2 trial

Robotic surgery may be an alternative to laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer (GC). However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the differences in survival between these two approaches are currently lacking. From September 2017 to January 2020, 300 patients with cT1-4a and N0/+ were enrolled and randomized to either the robotic (RDG) or laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) group (NCT03313700). The primary endpoint was 3-year disease-free survival (DFS); secondary endpoints reported here are the 3-year overall survival (OS) and recurrence patterns. The remaining secondary outcomes include intraoperative outcomes, postoperative recovery, quality of lymphadenectomy, and cost differences, which have previously been reported. There were 283 patients in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (RDG group: n = 141; LDG group: n = 142). The trial has met pre-specified endpoints. The 3-year DFS rates were 85.8% and 73.2% in the RDG and LDG groups, respectively (p = 0.011). Multivariable Cox regression model including age, tumor size, sex, ECOG PS, lymphovascular invasion, histology, pT stage, and pN stage showed that RDG was associated with better 3-year DFS (HR: 0.541; 95% CI: 0.314-0.932). The RDG also improved the 3-year cumulative recurrence rate (RDG vs. LDG: 12.1% vs. 21.1%; HR: 0.546, 95% CI: 0.302-0.990). Compared to LDG, RDG demonstrated non-inferiority in 3-year DFS rate.

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy conversion to gastric bypass: conversion rate over time, predictors of conversion, and weight loss outcomes

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is the most common Bariatric procedure in the United States; however, the frequency of conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim was to determine the conversion rate over time from LSG to RYGB. The secondary objectives were to evaluate factors associated with conversion and postconversion weight loss outcomes.

SETTING

Single Academic Institution, Center of Bariatric Excellence.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all LSG from 2011 to 2020 was done. Kaplan-Meier analysis was utilized to estimate the conversion rate over time after LSG. Cox regression was utilized to identify predictors of future conversion.

RESULTS

Of 875 LSGs, 46 were converted to RYGB from 2011 to 2020. Median follow-up was 2.6 years, and 7-year follow-up rate was 59.9%. The 1-year conversion rate was 1.4%, increasing to 3.8%, 9.0%, and 12.6% at 3, 5, and 7 years respectively. Female gender (hazard ratio [HR] = 4.2, P = .05) and age <55 (HR = 3.5, P = .04) were associated with greater chance of conversion. Preoperative asthma (HR = 1.7, P = .14) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) (HR = 1.5, P = .18) trended toward higher conversion but were not significant. Of those with body mass index (BMI) >35 at time of conversion, the mean total body weight loss (TBWL) was 13.0% at the time of conversion. This subgroup had additional 13.6% of TBWL 1-year after conversion.

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion of LSG to RYGB increased with time to 12.6% conversion rate at 7-years. Patients with GERD prior to LSG had a nonsignificant trend toward conversion, while younger patients and females had significantly higher rates of conversion. There may be additional weight loss benefit for patients converted to RYGB.

Metabolic Bariatric Surgery-A Vastly Underused Treatment

This Viewpoint discusses the disease of obesity: treatment options, disease management, and the need for legislation for obesity-related discrimination.

Inpatient opioid use and pain control after robotic versus laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

During the past decade, the proportion of bariatric surgery performed robotically has been rising. However, the clinical benefits of the robotic approach over laparoscopy are uncertain. One area in need of further investigation is pain control after robotic versus laparoscopic bariatric surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted of bariatric surgery patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic sleeve gastrectomy at a single institution from October 2019 to August 2022. Inpatient opioid use was measured in morphine milliequivalents. Pain scores were collected by the nursing staff.

RESULTS

A total of 368 patients were included: 286 laparoscopic and 82 robotic surgery patients. The groups shared similar demographics. For the entire cohort, the mean age was 42 years, the body mass index was 50 kg/m2, and 79% were female. Mean operative time was significantly lower for laparoscopic surgeries (87.5 ± 47.3 minutes vs 109.3 ± 30.3 minutes; P < .01). The median total inpatient morphine milligram equivalents used was similar for both groups: 52.3 (31.5-77.0) for the laparoscopic group versus 40 (24-74.5) for robotic (P = .13). Mean postoperative pain scores (scale out of 10) were not significantly different between groups: 5.2 ± 1.7 (postoperative day 0) and 4.5 ± 1.7 (day 1) for laparoscopic patients versus 5.1 ± 2.0 (day 0) and 4.4 ± 1.8 (day 1) for robotic. The proportion of patients prescribed opioids at discharge was significantly higher for the laparoscopic group (75.2% vs 62.2%; P = .02). Other clinical outcomes, including duration of stay, 30-day readmissions, and visits to the emergency department, were not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

There is no difference in inpatient opioid use or pain scores between patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic sleeve gastrectomy.

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-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass with the novel platform HugoTM RAS: preliminary experience in 15 patients

Robotic assisted surgery is a rapidly developing field in bariatric surgery. Its wide diffusion has led to the development and standardisation of robotic assisted approaches for various bariatric operations. However, further application has been limited thus far due to issues of cost-effectiveness and accessibility. The introduction of new robotic platforms may help overcome those obstacles. In this study, we present the first fifteen cases of Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) operations performed with the new Hugo™ RAS system (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA). From January to March 2023, consecutive patients scheduled for minimal invasive Roux-en-Y-Bypass were randomly selected and underwent the procedure robotic-assisted with the new platform. No exclusion criteria were applied. Seven female and eight male patients with a median BMI of 42 (range: 36-50) and obesity-related comorbidities in eight cases underwent RYGB. The median docking time was 7 min (range: 6-8.5) and the median console time was 100 min (range: 70-150). Procedures were performed without intraoperative complications and no conversion to laparoscopy or open surgery was noted. Operative times were indicative of a steep learning curve. No early post-operative complications were observed. Based on our initial experience, RYGB with the Hugo™ RAS system is promising and may be integrated in established robotic programmes without requiring a long adaptation period.

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.

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.

Robotic-Assisted Bariatric Surgery Is Associated with Increased Postoperative Complications Compared to Laparoscopic: a Nationwide Readmissions Database Study

PURPOSE

Robotic-assisted (RA) bariatric surgery has been increasingly used without consistent benefit over a laparoscopic approach (LA). We compared intra- and post-operative complications and 30- and 90-day all-cause readmissions between RA and LA using the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified hospitalizations with adult patients who underwent RA or LA bariatric surgery from 2010 to 2019. Primary outcomes included intra- and post-operative complications and 30- and 90-day all-cause readmissions. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital death, length of stay (LOS), cost, and cause-specific readmissions. Multivariable regression models were estimated; analyses accounted for the NRD sampling design.

RESULTS

A total of 1,371,778 hospitalizations met inclusion criteria with 7.1% using RA. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics were mostly similar between groups. Adjusted odds of complication were 13% higher for RA (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.13, 95% CI: 1.03-1.23 p = .008); aORs differed across bariatric procedures. The most common complications included nausea/vomiting, acute blood loss anemia, incisional hernia, and transfusion. Adjusted odds of 30- and 90-day readmission were 10% higher for RA (aOR: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.04-1.17, p = .001 and aOR: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.04-1.16, p <.001, respectively). LOS was similar (1.6 vs. 1.6 days, p = .253); although, hospital costs were 31.1% higher for RA ($15,806 vs. $12,056, p < .001).

CONCLUSION

RA bariatric surgery is associated with 13% higher odds of complication, 10% higher odds of readmission, and 31% hospital costs. Subsequent studies are required using databases that can include additional patient-, facility-, surgery-, and surgeon-specific characteristics.

Feasibility of Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass with the novel robotic platform HUGO™ RAS

Introduction

Robotic assisted surgery is a rapidly developing field of minimally invasive bariatric surgery in the last 20 years. Its wide diffusion has led to the development and standardization of robotic assisted approaches for bariatric operations. In this study, we present the first four Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) operations performed with the new Hugo™ RAS system (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA).

Methods

In January and February 2023, 4 consecutive patients scheduled for minimal invasive Roux-en-Y-Bypass were selected and underwent the procedure robotic-assisted with the new platform. No exclusion criteria were applied.

Results

Four patients, two females and two males, underwent RYGB with a median BMI of 40 Kg/m² (range: 36-46) and diabetes mellitus in two cases. The median docking time was 8 min (range: 7-8.5) and the median console time was 127.5 min (range: 95-150). A description of the operating theatre, robotic arms and docking setup is provided. Procedures were performed without intraoperative complications and no conversion to laparoscopy or open surgery was noted. No additional ports were needed to be placed. System's function and docking were uneventful. No early post-operative complications were observed.

Conclusions

Based on our initial experience, RYGB with the Hugo™ RAS system is feasible. This study provides the configurations necessary to perform RYGB with the Hugo™ RAS system as well as general information and insights from our preliminary experience.

Robotic vs laparoscopic approach for single anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy: a propensity score matching analysis

Biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch and single anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S) are technically demanding hypo-absorptive bariatric procedures. They are often indicated in superobese patients (BMI ≥ 50 kg/m²), as robotic platform could improve ergonomics against a thick abdominal wall, preventing bending of instruments and simplifying hand-sewn anastomoses. We aimed to report our experience with robotic SADI-S (R-group) and to compare outcomes with the laparoscopic (L-group) approach. Among 2143 patients who underwent bariatric procedures at our institution between July 2016 and June 2021, 116 (5.4%) consenting patients were scheduled for SADI-S as primary or revisional procedure: 94 L-group, 22 R-group. R-group and L-group patients were matched using PSM analysis to overcome patients selection bias. Postoperative complications, operative time (OT), post-operative stay (POS) and follow-up data were compared. After PSM, 44 patients (22 patients for each group) were compared (Chi-square 0.317, p = 0.985). Median age, gender, median BMI, preoperative rates of comorbidities, previous abdominal bariatric and non-bariatric surgeries and type of surgical procedures (SADI-S/SADI) were comparable. Median OT was shorter in the L-group (130 Vs 191 min, p < 0.001). 30-days' re-operative complications and late complications rates were comparable. At 25-months' mean follow-up, the median Percentage Excess Weight Loss (72%) was comparable between the groups (p = 0.989). L-group and R-group were comparable in terms of re-operative complication rate and short-term outcomes. The robotic platform may increase the rate of single step procedure in challenging cases. Larger studies with longer follow-up and cost-analysis are necessary to draw definitive conclusions.