The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of robotic-assisted (RA-) approach compared to the standard laparoscopic (L-) approach usingthe 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. 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. 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 30days. For SG, there was a higher rate of "transfusion" in the RA group. Incidence ofSEOs 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. 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.
Read full abstract