Robotic Duodenal Switch Is Associated with Outcomes Comparable to those of Laparoscopic Approach.

Abstract

Introduction/PurposeThis study evaluates the outcomes of robotic duodenal switch (RDS) when compared to conventional laparoscopy (LDS).Materials and MethodsUsing the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP), patients who underwent RDS were compared to those of LDS (2015–2018) for perioperative characteristics and thirty-day postoperative outcomes. Operative complexity, complications, and resource utilization trends were plotted over the included years for the two approaches. Multivariable analysis was conducted to characterize the impact of each approach on these outcomes.ResultsOf 7235 minimally invasive operations, 5720 (79.1%) were LDS while 1515 (20.9%) were RDS. Intraoperative endoscopy, anastomosis testing, and shorter operative duration were associated with LDS. RDS group had more concomitant procedures with less attending assistance. The odds ratios of organ space infection and sepsis were equivalent. RDS increased the odds ratios for venous thromboembolism [VTE] (odds ratio [OR] = 2.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.1–4.8, p = 0.02) and early discharge (OR = 7.3, CI = 4.9–10.9, p < 0.01). The difference in wound infection between LDS and RDS has been decreasing (1.5% and 1.5% in 2018 from 2.3% and 4.1% in 2015, respectively) over the years. Similarly, the decreasing trends were noted for systemic infections.ConclusionWhile the development of VTE after RDS was higher, most of the other complications were comparable between LDS and RDS in this study. RDS may reduce the need for advanced intraoperative assistance and minimize hospital stay in select cases, without increasing morbidity. The recent trends suggest a gradual decrease in the variations between LDS and RDS outcomes over time.