Laparoscopic versus full robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: retrospective, single-center study of the feasibility and short-term results

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.

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.

Outcomes of same-day discharge in bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND

Restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic influenced a shift to same-day discharge in bariatric surgery. Current studies show conflicting findings regarding morbidity and mortality. We aim to compare outcomes for same-day discharge versus admission after bariatric surgery.

METHODS

Subjects included patients who underwent primary laparoscopic or robotic-assisted sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-En-Y gastric bypass at an academic center. The inpatient group included patients discharged postoperative day one, and the outpatient group included patients discharged on the day of surgery. Primary outcomes included the number of emergency room visits, reoperations, IV fluid treatments, readmissions, and mortality within 30 days. Secondary outcomes were morbidity, including skin and soft tissue infection, pulmonary embolism, and acute kidney injury.

RESULTS

1225 patients met the inclusion criteria. In the gastric sleeve group, 852 subjects were outpatients and 227 inpatients. In the gastric bypass group, 70 subjects were outpatients, and 40 were inpatients. The mean age was 44.63 (17.38-85.31) years, and the mean preoperative BMI was 46.07 ± 8.14 kg/m2. The subjects in the outpatient group had lower BMI with fewer comorbidities. The groups differed significantly in age, BMI, and presence of several chronic comorbidities. The inpatient and outpatient groups for each surgery type did not differ significantly regarding reoperations, IV fluid treatments, or 30-day mortality. The inpatient sleeve group demonstrated a significantly higher readmission percentage than the outpatient group (4.6% vs 2.1%; p = 0.02882). The inpatient bypass group showed significantly greater ER visits (21.7% vs 10%; p = 0.0108). The incidence of adverse events regarding the secondary outcomes was not statistically different.

CONCLUSION

Same-day discharge after bariatric surgery is a safe and reasonable option for patients with few comorbidities.

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.

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 ROUX-EN-Y-GASTRIC BYPASS: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY IN A SINGLE CENTER

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery is the best treatment option for patients with obesity. As a result of the advancement of technology, the robotic gastric bypass presents promising results, despite its still high costs.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to compare patients submitted to a robotic versus a laparoscopic gastric bypass at a single center by a single surgeon.

METHODS

This retrospective study collected data from the medical records of 221 patients (121 laparoscopic procedures versus 100 with daVinci platform). The variables analyzed were sex, age, body mass index, comorbidities, surgical time, length of stay, and complications.

RESULTS

The mean surgical time for patients in the robotic group was shorter (102.41±39.44 min versus 113.86±39.03 min, p=0.018). The length of hospital stay in robotic patients was shorter (34.12±20.59 h versus 34.93±11.74 h, p=0.007). There were no serious complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The group submitted to the robotic method had a shorter surgical time and a shorter hospital stay. No difference was found regarding strictures, bleeding, or leakage.

The United States Experience with One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass at MBSAQIP-Accredited Centers

PURPOSE

One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) has emerged as a potentially safe and effective weight-loss procedure. Worldwide, OAGB is the third most commonly performed primary bariatric procedure, comprising 4% of the annual volume. In the USA, OAGB has yet to be endorsed as a primary bariatric procedure and can only be performed under research protocols or as a revision procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed an observational cohort study to describe the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative characteristics of adult patients who underwent primary or revision OAGB from 2015 to 2019 at MBSAQIP centers. Exclusion criteria included emergent surgery, incomplete 30-day follow-up, and non-laparoscopic- or robotic approach.

RESULTS

During the study period, 803,906 bariatric procedures were performed and 645 (0.08%) were OAGB. Among these, 436 (67.6%) were primary and 209 (32.4%) were revision OAGB. The mean operation time was 89 min (SD, 59) and 8% were performed using a robotic approach. The overall complication rate was 7.4% and there was one death (0.2%). The post-operative complication rates were generally higher than the early complication rate (3.4%) reported in the YOMEGA trial, an RCT from France. Revision OAGB had a longer mean operation time of 141 min (SD, 85, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Primary OAGB was a rarely performed bariatric procedure at MBSAQIP-accredited centers comprising only 0.05% compared to 4% worldwide. Future studies should compare safety of OAGB to that of established bariatric procedures like Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy.

A fully stapled technique for gastrojejunal anastomosis creation in robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to showcase a fully stapled approach to creating a gastrojejunostomy during a robot-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

METHODS

We utilize two robotic 12-mm ports, two robotic 8-mm ports, and one 8-mm assistant port. The tools used are a fenestrated bipolar forceps, vessel sealer, cadiere grasper, needle driver, and a robotic stapler. After the partial gastrectomy, the roux limb is brought up to the gastric pouch where monopolar scissors are used to create a gastrotomy and enterotomy. The gastrotomy is made just above the staple line of the gastric pouch. The enterotomy is created 2 cm distal to the roux limb's staple line. The stapler is inserted into both the gastrotomy and enterotomy to create the common channel. A 2-0 vicryl suture is used to place four interrupted sutures across the remaining enterotomy in full thickness bites. An endoscope or Visigi bougie is advanced across the anastomosis into the roux limb before the final suture. The tails of the most lateral and medial sutures are grasped and lifted towards the abdominal wall. The stapler is advanced over the approximated enterostomy while holding tension with the suture tails. The stapler is fired transversely across the suture line to seal the gastrojejunostomy. The staple line may be oversewn with silk sutures. A leak test is performed prior to completing the reconstruction with the jejunojejunostomy.

CONCLUSIONS

A fully stapled technique of anastomosis creation may reduce operative time, standardizes the process for reproducibility, and increases consistency across operators and patients.

Operative Time and 30-Day Outcomes in Bariatric Surgery: Comparison between Robotic and Laparoscopic Approach: 4-Year MBSAQIP Database Analysis

BACKGROUND

The main criticism of robotic surgery is longer operative time (OT). The aim of this study was to examine the variables that determine OT, the association between OT and 30-day outcomes, and the effect of the robotic approach in bariatric surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

MBSAQIP data for 2016 to 2019 were queried. Logistic regression was performed to examine the association between OT and outcomes for each surgical approach while adjusting for patients' characteristics. The results of each fitted logistic regression model were reported as odds ratio and the associated 95% CI.

RESULTS

A total of 666,182 patients underwent robotic sleeve gastrectomy (R-SG), laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (R-RYGB), laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, robotic duodenal switch (R-DS), and laparoscopic duodenal switch). More patients underwent laparoscopic surgery (89.7%) than robotic surgery (10.3%). OT for robotic cases was longer than for laparoscopic cases (p < 0.0001). Longer OT was associated with increased odds of adverse 30-day outcomes irrespective of the surgical approach. The association between OT and adverse outcomes was stronger in the laparoscopic cohort. There was no significant difference in postoperative outcomes when comparing the laparoscopic and robotic approaches after adjusting for OT, except a lower reoperation rate for R-SG (p = 0.03) and readmission rates in R-RYGB and R-DS (p < 0.01). The variability of OT was higher in the laparoscopic group and was more affected by the first assistant.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes in robotic bariatric surgery were comparable with the laparoscopic approach despite longer OT. Use of robotic surgery decreased the variability in OT.

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.

Robotic and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass after learning curve: 30-day and 12-month outcomes

This study compares laparoscopic RYGB (L-RYGB) and robotic RYGB (R-RYGB) performed by the same team after the learning curve in both approaches. A retrospective cohort study was done, and the surgical outcome was analyzed in 30 days and 12 months for patients with similar characteristics and an equal number of cases in each group (233 cases). Four hundred and sixty-six patients were included in this study. Mean age was 46.8 ± 8.3 years and 2/3 were women. R-RYGB presented a longer operative time (150.7 versus 135.4 min; p < 0.001) with no differences in the length of hospital stay. The main 30-day complications were G-J stricture, leakage, and intraluminal bleeding. The reoperation rate was 1.6% by leakage (G-J anastomosis) and was higher in R-RYGB (2.1 versus 0.4; p = 0.108). The multivariate analysis identified that L-RYGB was the factor independently associated with a LOS longer than 2 days (odds ratio: 4.7, 95% CI: 2.6-8.2, p value < 0.001). At the FU time (12 months), no differences between the groups were found. The outcomes between the groups after the learning curve did not present differences in terms of 30 days and 12 months of FU when same preoperative characteristics and an equal number of cases in each group are considered. L-RYGB was the unique independent factor associated with long LOS.

The Impact of Robotics in Learning Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: a Retrospective Analysis of 214 Laparoscopic and Robotic Procedures : Robotic Vs. Laparoscopic RYGB

BACKGROUND

Proximal Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is commonly used to manage obesity, performed using laparoscopic or robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery. As the prevalence of robotic bariatric surgery increases, further data is required to justify its use.

METHODS

This was a large, retrospective analysis of prospectively recorded data for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) procedures performed using laparoscopic (LRYGB) or robotic (RRYGB; da Vinci Xi system, Intuitive Surgical Sàrl) surgery between January 2016 and March 2019. The surgical techniques did not differ apart from different trocar placements. Data collected included patient characteristics before and after RYGB, operative outcomes and complications.

RESULTS

In total, 114 RRYGB and 108 LRYGB primary surgeries were performed. There were no significant differences between the groups, apart from a significantly shorter duration of surgery (116.9 vs. 128.9 min, respectively), lower C-reactive protein values at days 1 (31.1 vs. 44.1 mg/l) and 2 (50.3 vs. 77.8 mg/l) after the intervention, and overall complication rate (4.4 vs. 12.0%, Clavien-Dindo classification II-V) with RRYGB compared with LRYGB. There was a lower hemoglobin value in the postoperative course after RRYGB (12.1 vs. 12.6 g/dl, day 2).

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, robotic RYGB has proven to be safe and efficient, with a shorter duration of surgery and lower rate of complications than laparoscopic RYGB. RRYGB is easier to learn and seems safer in less experienced centers. Increasing experience with the robotic system can reduce the duration of surgery over time. Further studies with higher evidence level are necessary to confirm our results.

Comparative analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in severely obese patients

Benefits of robotic surgery for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) are still debated. We aimed to compare conventional laparoscopic (L-RYGB) to robotic RYGB (R-RYGB) and evaluate safety, efficacy, advantages and drawbacks of each procedure. A prospective cohort study with a retrospective review approach was conducted to analyze results of L-RYGB and R-RYGB performed at a bariatric center of excellence. Patient demographics, perioperative data, weight loss, comorbidities evolution and cost were assessed. One hundred and sixty-one severely obese patients underwent R-RYGB and L-RYGB, respectively. Patient's characteristics were similar between groups. Intraoperative blood loss was similar (p = 0.91), with no requirement for blood transfusion. Median operative time was significantly reduced for R-RYGB (127 vs 160 min; p < 0.001). Seven patients (11.4%) in the L-RYGB group and 15 patients (15%) in the R-RYGB group had early postoperative complications (p = 0.63), with more anastomotic leaks and stenosis for R-RYGB during initial learning curve (p = NS). Mortality was null. Median length of hospital stay was similar (6 days; p = 0.20). Mean hospital cost was non-significantly increased for R-RYGB ($5730 vs. $4879; p = 0.34). Two years after surgery, median BMI and mean EWL% were similar for both groups (26.1 vs 26.5 kg/m² and 89.9% vs 90.9% for L-RYGB and R-RYGB groups, respectively; p = 0.71 and 0.85, respectively), with no statistically significant difference in comorbidities between the two groups (p = 0.80). R-RYGB is feasible and safe within the reach of every laparoscopic surgeon. In our series, it was associated with shorter operative time and equivalent length of stay and weight loss outcomes compared to L-RYGB. Further well-designed randomized studies are necessary to draw safe conclusions.

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.