A comparison of outcomes between the traditional laparoscopic and totally robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass 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.

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.

Primary Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in Morbidly Obese Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RRYGB) and conventional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) are commonly performed as primary bariatric procedures. The aim of this article was to assess the role of RRYGB in patients undergoing primary bariatric procedures.

METHODS

All of the qualified studies were selected from the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases, etc. We mainly compared the outcomes and safety between RRYGB and LRYGB. The outcomes evaluation included surgical effect and surgical safety.

RESULT

In total, 35 studies containing 426,463 patients were selected. The mortalities of patients adopting these 2 bariatric procedures were similar (RRYGB: 59/28,023, 0.21%; LRYGB: 612/397,945, 0.15%). We found no significant difference between RRYGB and LRYGB in the incidence of postoperative complications (30-day: OR=1.06, P =0.18; 1-y: OR=1.06, P =0.92). The incidence of 30-day readmission after the operation was higher in RRYGB patients (OR=1.24, P =0.003). However, we found that the RRYGB group had a lower incidence of anastomotic stricture 1 year after the operation when compared with LRYGB (OR=0.35, P =0.0004). The 1-year %EBMIL of these 2 groups was similar (78.53% vs. 76.02%). There was no significant difference in length of hospital stay (LOS) (WMD=-0.03d, P =0.59), conversion rate (OR=0.84, P =0.75), or anastomotic leak (OR=1.00, P =0.99) between these 2 groups. The mean hospital charges were higher in the RRYGB group ($11234.75 vs. $9468.58).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis showed no significant advantage of RRYGB in surgical effect or reduction of intraoperative complications. RRYGB may reduce the incidence of some postoperative long-term complications. The mean hospital charges of RRYGB were higher.

A Systematic Review to Summarise and Appraise the Reporting of Surgical Innovation: a Case Study in Robotic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass

Robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RRYGB) is an innovative alternative to traditional laparoscopic approaches. Literature has been published investigating its safety/efficacy; however, the quality of reporting is uncertain. This systematic review used the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term follow-up (IDEAL) framework to assess the reporting quality of available literature. A narrative summary was formulated, assessing how comprehensively governance/ethics, patient selection, demographics, surgeon expertise/training, technique description and outcomes were reported. Forty-seven studies published between 2005 and 2024 were included. There was incomplete/inconsistent reporting of governance/ethics, patient selection, surgeon expertise/training and technique description, with heterogenous outcome reporting. RRYGB reporting was poor and did not align with IDEAL guidance. Robust prospective studies reporting findings using IDEAL/other guidance are required to facilitate safe widespread adoption of RRYGB and other surgical innovations.

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.

Utility and usability of laser speckle contrast imaging (LSCI) for displaying real-time tissue perfusion/blood flow in robot-assisted surgery (RAS): comparison to indocyanine green (ICG) and use in laparoscopic surgery

Background

Utility and usability of laser speckle contrast imaging (LSCI) in detecting real-time tissue perfusion in robot-assisted surgery (RAS) and laparoscopic surgery are not known. LSCI displays a color heatmap of real-time tissue blood flow by capturing the interference of coherent laser light on red blood cells. LSCI has advantages in perfusion visualization over indocyanine green imaging (ICG) including repeat use on demand, no need for dye, and no latency between injection and display. Herein, we report the first-in-human clinical comparison of a novel device combining proprietary LSCI processing and ICG for real-time perfusion assessment during RAS and laparoscopic surgeries.

Methods

ActivSight™ imaging module is integrated between a standard laparoscopic camera and scope, capable of detecting tissue blood flow via LSCI and ICG in laparoscopic surgery. From November 2020 to July 2021, we studied its use during elective robotic-assisted and laparoscopic cholecystectomies, colorectal, and bariatric surgeries (NCT# 04633512). For RAS, an ancillary laparoscope with ActivSight imaging module was used for LSCI/ICG visualization. We determined safety, usability, and utility of LSCI in RAS vs. laparoscopic surgery using end-user/surgeon human factor testing (Likert scale 1–5) and compared results with two-tailed t tests.

Results

67 patients were included in the study—40 (60%) RAS vs. 27 (40%) laparoscopic surgeries. Patient demographics were similar in both groups. No adverse events to patients and surgeons were observed in both laparoscopic and RAS groups. Use of an ancillary laparoscopic system for LSCI/ICG visualization had minimal impact on usability in RAS as evidenced by surgeon ratings of device usability (set-up 4.2/5 and form-factor 3.8/5). LSCI ability to detect perfusion (97.5% in RAS vs 100% in laparoscopic cases) was comparable in both RAS and laparoscopic cases.

Conclusions

LSCI demonstrates comparable utility and usability in detecting real-time tissue perfusion/blood flow in RAS and laparoscopic surgery.

Graphical abstract

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Outcomes in conventional laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted primary bariatric surgery: a retrospective, case-controlled study of the MBSAQIP database

Introduction

Robotic-assisted bariatric surgery is increasingly performed. There remains controversy about the overall benefit of robotic-assisted (RBS) compared to conventional laparoscopic (LBS) bariatric surgery. In this study, we used a large national risk-stratified bariatric clinical database to compare outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic gastric bypass (RNYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG).

Methods

A retrospective analysis of the 2015 and 2016 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) Participant Use Data File (PUF) was performed. Primary robotic and laparoscopic RYNGB and SG were analyzed. Descriptive analysis was performed of the unmatched cohorts, followed by 1:3 case-controlled matching. Cases and controls were matched by patient demographics and pre-operative comorbidities, and peri-operative outcomes compared.

Results

77,991 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RnYGB) (7.5% robotic-assisted) and 189,503 SG (6.8% robotic-assisted) cases were identified. Operative length was significantly higher in both the robotic-assisted RnYGB and SG cohorts (p < 0.0001). Outcomes were similar between the robotic-assisted and laparoscopic RnYGB cohorts, except a lower mortality rate (p = 0.05), transfusion requirement (p = 0.005), aggregate bleeding (p = 0.04), and surgical site infections (SSI) (p = 0.006) in the robotic-assisted cohort. Outcomes were also similar between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic SG, except for a longer length of stay (p < 0.0001) and higher rates of conversion (p < 0.0001), 30-day intervention (p = 0.01), operative drain present (p < 0.0001), sepsis (p = 0.01), and organ space SSI (p = 0.0002) in the robotic cohort. Bleeding was lower in the robotic SG cohort and mortality was similar.

Conclusion

Both robotic-assisted and laparoscopic RnYGB and SG are overall very safe. Robotic-assisted gastric bypass is associated with a lower mortality and morbidity; however, a clear benefit for robotic-assisted SG compared to laparoscopic SG was not seen. Given the longer operative and hospital duration, robotic SG is not cost-effective.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-019-06915-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

We aim to summarize the available literature on patients treated with robotic RYGB and compare the clinical outcomes of patients treated with robotic RYGB with those treated with the standard laparoscopic RYGB. A systematic literature search of PubMed and Scopus databases was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Fourteen comparative and 11 non-comparative studies were included in this study, reporting data on 5145 patients. This study points to comparable clinical outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic RYGB. Robotic-assisted RYGB was associated with significantly less frequent anastomotic stricture events, reoperations, and a decreased length of hospital stay compared with the standard laparoscopic procedures; however, these findings should be interpreted with caution given the low number and poor quality of the studies currently available in the literature.