Advertisement

Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

References

  1. 1.

    World Health Organization (2018) Obesity and overweight. World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight. Accessed Sept 24 2018

  2. 2.

    ASMBS. (2018). The Impact of Obesity on Your Body and Health. https://asmbs.org/patients/impact-of-obesity. Accessed Sept 24 2018

  3. 3.

    Mason EE, Ito C (1996) Gastric Bypass in Obesity. Obes Res 4(3):316–319

  4. 4.

    Elias AA et al (2018) Robotic-assisted bariatric surgery: case series analysis and comparison with the laparoscopic approach. Rev Col Bras Cir 45(3):e1806

  5. 5.

    Zhang Y, Zhu C, Wen X, Li L, Rampersad S, Lu L, Zhou D, Qian C, Cui R, Zhang M, Yang P, Qu S, Bu L (2017) Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy improves body composition and alleviates insulin resistance in obesity related acanthosis nigricans. Lipids Health Dis 16(1):209

  6. 6.

    Yska JP et al (2015) Remission of type 2 diabetes mellitus in patients after different types of bariatric surgery: a population-based cohort study in the United Kingdom. JAMA Surg 150(12):1126–1133

  7. 7.

    Ribaric G, Buchwald JM, McGlennon TW (2014) Diabetes and weight in comparative studies of bariatric surgery vs conventional medical therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Surg 24(3):437–455

  8. 8.

    Courcoulas AP et al (2014) Long-term outcomes of bariatric surgery: a National Institutes of Health Symposium. JAMA Surg 149(12):1323–1329

  9. 9.

    Bailey JG et al (2014) Robotic versus laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in obese adults ages 18 to 65 years: a systematic review and economic analysis. Surg Endosc 28:414–426

  10. 10.

    Li K et al (2016) Robotic versus laparoscopic bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Surg 26:3031–3044

  11. 11.

    Alizadeh RF et al (2018) Robotic versus laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a MBSAQIP analysis. Surgical Endoscopy. 33:917–922

  12. 12.

    Buchs NC, Morel P, Azagury DE et al (2014) Laparoscopic versus robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: lessons and long-term follow-up learned from a large prospective monocentric study. Obes Surg 4(12):2031–2039

  13. 13.

    Rogula et al (2018) Does robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass provide outcome advantages over standard laparoscopic approaches? Obes Surg 28(9):2589–2596

  14. 14.

    Smeenk RM, Van’t Hof G, Elsten E, Feskens PGBM (2016) The results of 100 robotic versus 100 laparoscopic gastric bypass procedures: a single high volume centre experience. Obes Surg 26:1266–1273

  15. 15.

    Ahmad A, Carleton JD, Ahmad ZF, Agarwala A (2016) Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a retrospective, single-center study of early perioperative outcomes at a community hospital. Surg Endosc 30:3792–3796

  16. 16.

    Wood MH et al (2014) A comparison of outcomes between the traditional laparoscopic and totally robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures. J Robotic Surg 8:29–34

  17. 17.

    Moon RC et al (2016) Robotic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass, is it safer than laparoscopic bypass? Obes Surg 26:1016–1020

  18. 18.

    Celio AC et al (2017) Perioperative safety of laparoscopic versus robotic gastric bypass: a propensity matched analysis of early experience. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 13(11):1847–1852

  19. 19.

    Sebastian R, Howell MH, Chang KH, Adrales G, Magnuson T, Schweitzer M, Nguyen H (2018) Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy: a propensity score-matched comparative analysis using the 2015 = 2016 MBSAQIP database. Surg Endosc 33(5):1600–1612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6422-7

  20. 20.

    Magouliotis DE, Tasiopoulou VS, Sioka E, Zacharoulis D (2017) Robotic versus laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for morbid obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Surg 17(1):245–253

  21. 21.

    Berger ER et al (2016) The Impact of Different Surgical Techniques on Outcomes in Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomies: The First Report from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP). Ann Surg 264(3):464–473

  22. 22.

    Higgins RM, Frelich MJ, Bosler ME, Gould JC (2017) Cost analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery procedures. Surg Endosc 13(1):185–192

  23. 23.

    Ho C, Tsakonas E, Tran K, et al (2017) Robot-assisted surgery compared with open surgery and laparoscopic surgery: clinical effectiveness and economic analyses. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; (CADTH Technology Report, No. 137). Table 16, Capital and Operating Costs of da Vinci Surgical System

Download references

Funding

Our research was supported by the Department of Surgery at Temple University Hospital and the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University

Author information

Correspondence to Michael A. Edwards.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Drs. Edwin Acevedo, Jr., Michael Mazzei, Huaqing Zhao, Rohit Soans, Michael A. Edwards, and Mr. Xioaoning Lu have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 15 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 13 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Acevedo, E., Mazzei, M., Zhao, H. et al. Outcomes in conventional laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted primary bariatric surgery: a retrospective, case–controlled study of the MBSAQIP database. Surg Endosc 34, 1353–1365 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06915-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Primary bariatric surgery
  • Robotic-assisted
  • Conventional laparoscopic