Robotic-assisted Bariatric Surgery Research Articles

Robotic versus laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In recent years, the need for revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) procedures has experienced a noteworthy surge to confront complexities and weight recidivism. Despite being a subject of controversy for many, the utilization of the Da Vinci robotic platform (Intuitive Surgical, Inc.) may present benefits in RBS. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of robotic RBS in comparison to Laparoscopic RBS. A meticulous and thorough analysis was ensured through a comprehensive exploration of the literature, which included PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane. This exploration was conducted in adherence to the directives outlined in the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for quality assessment. A total of 11 studies were included in this meta-analysis, comprising 55,889 in the laparoscopic group and 5,809 in the robotic group. No significant differences were observed in the leak, bleeding, operative time, or length of stay across both groups. However, the robotic group showed higher rates of conversion to open surgery (odds ratio [OR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.79; p < 0.0001; I2 = 0%), reoperation (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87; p = 0.0009; I2 = 6%), and readmission (higher rate of readmission in the robotic group; OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.62-0.92; p = 0.005; I2 = 30%). Robotic-assisted bariatric surgery has no significant advantage over conventional laparoscopic surgery. Further research is warranted to explore and evaluate surgeons' methodology and proficiency differences.

BS O06 Robotic-assisted bariatric surgery: a systematic review on learning curves

Abstract Background Robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery has improved patient outcomes and experiences in various surgical disciplines, demonstrating reduced complications, postoperative pain, and length of hospital stays. Within the field of bariatric surgery, the integration of robotic systems aims to further enhance patient outcomes compared to traditional laparoscopic procedures. However, the precise learning curve (LC) for robotic bariatric surgery has yet to be clearly defined. Considering this knowledge gap, our review aims to compile and analyse the most up-to-date evidence on LC outcomes in bariatric surgery procedures. Methods In this review, we searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Library databases up to April 2023 to identify studies reporting LC outcomes for robotic bariatric procedures. The primary outcome was the number of operations required to reach LC stabilization. Secondary outcomes included surgeon characteristics, including the number of training surgeons, their prior laparoscopic and/or robotic experience, exposure to simulated robotic training and outcome measures, including complication rates, surgery duration, and length of stay. Our study is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023425878), and no specific grants were received from funding agencies. Results Of 432 initial results, 18 articles were included. All were observational studies reporting 27 cohorts from 2006 to 2022, involving 2084 patients. There were one to four included surgeons. The overall median number of cases to overcome the LC was 35 (IQR 15-64). For gastric bypass (RGB), the median LC was 25 (IQR 15-69), while for sleeve gastrectomy (RSG), it was 31 (IQR 20-86). The overall operation time was 185 minutes (IQR 124-197), with RGB at 152 minutes (IQR 139-196) and RSG at 98 minutes (IQR 85-110). Five studies used the CUSUM methodology, while others lacked specified LC determination approaches. Conclusions Our review highlights that the learning curve for bariatric surgery can be navigated relatively quickly and safely. However, it also reveals that the existing evidence on learning curves for robotic bariatric surgery is derived from a limited number of surgeons with unclear levels of prior surgical experience. Furthermore, the heterogeneity in evaluating learning curves poses challenges for comprehensive analysis. Future studies should aim to outline differences in outcomes between established laparoscopic methods and robotic bariatric procedures, providing further clarity in this field.

Robotic Bariatric Surgery in Older Adults, Is It Safer Than the Laparoscopic Approach? A 7-Year Analysis of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) Database.

Utilization of the robotic platform in bariatric surgery has increased over the past several years. The population of older adults who benefit from bariatric surgery is also growing. This study evaluated the safety of robotic-assisted bariatric surgery in older adults using the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) Database. Adults who underwent gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy and were ≥ 65 years old between the years 2015 and 2021 were included. The 30-day outcomes were assessed and stratified based on Clavien-Dindo (CD) classification of III-V. Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions were performed to identify predictors of CD ≥ III complications. A total of 62,973 bariatric surgery patients were included. Most of the patients (90%) underwent laparoscopic surgery, and the remainder (10%) underwent robotic surgery. Robotic sleeve gastrectomy (R-SG) was associated with lower odds of developing CD ≥ III complications compared to three other procedures (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 0.741; confidence interval (CI), 0.584-0.941; p 0.014). Bariatric surgery using a robotic approach is considered safe for older patients. Robotic sleeve gastrectomy (R-SG) has the lowest morbidity and mortality rates compared to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (L-SG), laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (L-RYGB), and robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (R-RYGB). The findings of this study can help surgeons and their elderly patients to make informed decisions regarding the safety of different bariatric surgical approaches.

Robotic-Assisted Bariatric Surgery Is Associated with Increased Postoperative Complications Compared to Laparoscopic: a Nationwide Readmissions Database Study.

Robotic-assisted (RA) bariatric surgery has been increasingly used without consistent benefit over a laparoscopic approach (LA). We compared intra- and post-operative complications and 30- and 90-day all-cause readmissions between RA and LA using the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD). We identified hospitalizations with adult patients who underwent RA or LA bariatric surgery from 2010 to 2019. Primary outcomes included intra- and post-operative complications and 30- and 90-day all-cause readmissions. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital death, length of stay (LOS), cost, and cause-specific readmissions. Multivariable regression models were estimated; analyses accounted for the NRD sampling design. A total of 1,371,778 hospitalizations met inclusion criteria with 7.1% using RA. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics were mostly similar between groups. Adjusted odds of complication were 13% higher for RA (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.13, 95% CI: 1.03-1.23 p = .008); aORs differed across bariatric procedures. The most common complications included nausea/vomiting, acute blood loss anemia, incisional hernia, and transfusion. Adjusted odds of 30- and 90-day readmission were 10% higher for RA (aOR: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.04-1.17, p = .001 and aOR: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.04-1.16, p <.001, respectively). LOS was similar (1.6 vs. 1.6 days, p = .253); although, hospital costs were 31.1% higher for RA ($15,806 vs. $12,056, p < .001). RA bariatric surgery is associated with 13% higher odds of complication, 10% higher odds of readmission, and 31% hospital costs. Subsequent studies are required using databases that can include additional patient-, facility-, surgery-, and surgeon-specific characteristics.

Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Bariatric Surgery Compared to Standard Laparoscopic Approach Using a Standardized Definition: First Look at the 2020 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Improvement Project (MBSAQIP) Data.

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.

A074 Robotic-assisted bariatric surgery is associated with increased post-operative complications compared to laparoscopic bariatric surgery

A074 Robotic-assisted bariatric surgery is associated with increased post-operative complications compared to laparoscopic bariatric surgery

Understanding the Current Role of Robotic-Assisted Bariatric Surgery.

The role of robotic surgery in bariatrics remains controversial. Patient selection for robotic surgery is not well-studied. The objective of this study was to identify factors associated with robotic surgery and its temporal trends. The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database from 2015 to 2018 was used. Adult patients undergoing primary sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) using the laparoscopic or robotic approach were identified. Revisional, hybrid, or those with concomitant procedures were excluded. Logistic regression was conducted to identify factors associated with undergoing robotic-assisted surgery. Among 211,568 patients who underwent SG, 9.1% underwent a robotic SG; among 76,805 patients who underwent RYGB, 7.9% of patients underwent a robotic RYGB. During 2015-2018, robotics increased from 7.1 to 11.3% for SG and 7.4 to 8.6% for RYGB. After controlling for patient characteristics, there was still an increasing trend in the use of robotic surgery: SG (multivariable-adjusted odds ratio, aOR, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, CI, 1.17-1.20) and RYGB (aOR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.03-1.08). For both robotic SG and RYGB, functional status and African American race were associated with undergoing robotic surgery, while races other than White or African American and Hispanic ethnicity were not. Pre-operative IVC filter was associated with robotic SG, while the presence of GERD, diabetes, and COPD were associated with robotic RYGB. Robotic bariatric surgery has increased over time. Our findings identified factors associated with the receipt of robotic surgery. Reasons for these factors require further investigation to better delineate indications for this technology.

Robotic-assisted surgery enhances the learning curve while maintaining quality outcomes in sleeve gastrectomy: a preliminary, multicenter study.

The frequency of robotic-assisted bariatric surgery has been on the rise. An increasing number of fellowship programs have adopted robotic surgery as part of the curriculum. Our aim was to compare technical efficiency of a surgeon during the first year of practice after completing an advanced minimally invasive fellowship with a mentor surgeon. A systematic review of a prospectively maintained database was performed of consecutive patients undergoing robotic-assisted sleeve gastrectomy between 2015 and 2019 at a tertiary-care bariatric center (mentor group) and between 2018 and 2019 at a semi-academic community-based bariatric program (mentee 1 group) and 2019-2020 at a tertiary-care academic center (mentee 2 group). 257 patients in the mentor group, 45 patients in the mentee 1 group, and 11 patients in the mentee 2 group were included. The mentee operative times during the first year in practice were significantly faster than the mentor's times in the first three (mentee 1 group) and two (mentee 2 group) years (P < 0.05) but remained significantly longer than the mentor's times in the last two (mentee 1 group) and one (mentee 2 group) years (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in venothromboembolic events (P = 0.89) or readmission rates (P = 0.93). The mean length of stay was 1.8 ± 0.5days, 1.3 ± 0.5days, and 1.5 ± 0.5days in the mentor, mentee 1, and mentee 2 groups, respectively (P < 0.0001). There were no reoperations, conversion to laparoscopy or open, no staple line leaks, strictures, or deaths in any group. This is one of the first series to show that the robotic platform can safely be taught and may translate into outcomes consistent with surgeons with more experience while mitigating the learning curve as early as the first year in practice. Long-term follow-up of mentees will be necessary to assess the evolution of fellowship training and outcomes.

Trends in Utilization and Perioperative Outcomes in Robotic-assisted Bariatric surgery using the MBSAQIP database: A 4-Year Analysis.

Robotic-assisted surgery has become increasingly popular across surgical subspecialties. We aimed to analyze trends in the national utilization and outcomes in bariatric surgery. The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP®) data for 2015-2018 was queried. We included robotic-assisted sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), adjustable gastric band (AGB), biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD-DS), and revisional cases. The Kruskal-Wallis test or Wilcoxon rank-sum were used for comparing continuous variables and Cochran-Armitage trend analysis for categorical variables when comparing years, or with Fisher's Exact Test when directly comparing categories. Of 760,076 bariatric cases performed between 2015 and 2018, 7.4% with robotic and 90.4% with laparoscopic approach. SG constituted 61.3% of robotic volume. Utilization of robotic surgery increased 1.96-fold; SG represented the most substantial increase of 2.16-fold, followed by a 1.53-fold in RYGB. The 30-day readmission and re-intervention rates decreased from 5.63% to 4.78% (p<0.01), and 2.31% to 1.46% (p<0.01), respectively. The overall leak rate improved from 0.64% to 0.39% (p=0.01). Mortality and re-operations remained statistically unchanged. When compared to laparoscopic approach, the operative time were significantly longer in the robotic group. Regarding postoperative outcomes, when adjusted for patient characteristics, there were no differences between two approaches except a higher leak rate in robotic group in 2015. A steady increase in robotic bariatric surgery is apparent. While the operative time remains significantly longer in the robotic group, trends indicate improvement in key quality metrics and patient outcomes as utilization increases.

Elective robotic-assisted bariatric surgery: Is it worth the money? A national database analysis

BackgroundThis study sought to evaluate surgical outcomes, cost, and opiate utilization between patients who underwent either laparoscopic or robotic-assisted bariatric procedures, including sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). MethodsThe Vizient administrative database was queried for patients admitted with mild to moderate severity of illness scores who underwent elective laparoscopic (L) and robotic-assisted (R) SG or RYGB from October 2015 through December 2018. Patients were grouped according to surgical approach for each bariatric procedure. Rates of overall complications, mortality, 30-day readmission, LOS, total direct cost, and opiate utilization were collected. Comparisons were performed within each bariatric procedure, between laparoscopic and robotic approaches, using IBM SPSS v.25.0, α = 0.05. ResultsFor SG, a total of 84,034 patients were included (LSG:N = 78,405; RSG:N = 5639). There was no significant difference in rates of overall complications (LSG:0.5%, RSG:0.4%; p = 0.872), mortality (LSG:<0.01%, RSG:<0.01%; p = 0.660), and 30-day readmissions (LSG: 0.5%, RSG:0.5%; p = 0.524). Average LOS was 1.65 ± 1.07 days for LSG and 1.77 ± 1.29 days for RSG (p=<0.001). Robotic approach had a significantly higher direct cost (LSG: $6505 ± 3,200, RSG: $8018 ± 3849; p=<0.001). Rate of opiate use was 97.3% for both groups (p=>0.05). For RYGB, 36,039 patients met the inclusion criteria (LRYGB:N = 33,053; RRYGB:N = 2986). There was no significant difference in rates of overall complications (LRYGB: 1.4%, RRYGB:1.3%; p = 0.414) or mortality (LRGYB:<0.01%, RRYGB: <0.01%; p = 0.646). Robotic approach was associated with a lower 30-day readmission rate (LRYGB: 1.3%, RRYGB:<0.01%; p=<0.001). Average LOS was 2.1 ± 2.18 days for LRYGB and 2.18 ± 3.78 days for RRYGB (p = 0.075). Robotic approach had a significantly higher direct cost (LRYGB:$8564 ± 5,350, RRYGB: $10,325 ± 7689; p=<0.001) and rate of opiate use (LRYG:95.75%, RRYGB:96.85%; p = 0.005). ConclusionOur study found the direct cost of RSG to be significantly higher than LSG with no added clinical benefit, therefore, universal use of the robotic platform for routine SG cases remains difficult to justify. While the direct cost of RRYGB was also higher than LRYGB, the significantly lower readmission rate associated with robotic approach may help to offset the financial discrepancy and warrant its use.

Trends in Use and Perioperative Outcomes in Robotic-Assisted Bariatric Surgery

Trends in Use and Perioperative Outcomes in Robotic-Assisted Bariatric Surgery

A271 - MBSAQIP National Registry Study of Robotic-assisted Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Sleeve Gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass

Background: Robotic-assisted (RA) bariatric surgery is increasing. We investigated the safety of the RA surgical approach in the context of sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) as principle bariatric procedures.

Perioperative patient care involved with robotic-assisted bariatric surgery

Perioperative patient care involved with robotic-assisted bariatric surgery

High incidence of trocar site hernia after laparoscopic or robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

Trocar Site Hernia (TSH) seems to represent a rare surgical complication, but available data are based only on symptomatic patients and clinically diagnosed cases; moreover, no data are available concerning TSH incidence after robotic-assisted procedures. Aims of the study were to asses TSH incidence in obese patients who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and to compare it between robotic-assisted and standard laparoscopy. Patients who underwent RYGB between November 2007 and June 2012 underwent a clinical examination and an ultrasonography study of the abdominal wall by a single operator. 150 patients entered the study, 102 in the laparoscopic and 48 in the robotic group. Mean pre-operative weight and BMI were 129.3 kg and 47.4 kg/m(2), respectively; both were higher in the laparoscopic group (134.7 vs 117.6 kg, p < 0.001; 49.2 vs 43.8 kg/m(2), p < 0.001), while pre-operative comorbidities were not significantly different between groups. Operative time was lower in the laparoscopic group (182.7 vs 284.0 min, p < 0.001), while post-operative complications were not different between groups. The overall incidence of TSH was 39.3% (59/150); incidence was 35.3% (36/102) in the laparoscopic and 47.9% (23/48) in the robotic group (p = 0.195). There were no significant differences between patients with and without TSH, except for higher post-operative wound complication in patients without TSH (22 vs 6.8%, p = 0.024; OR 0.26). TSH revealed a high incidence in a bariatric surgery population, suggesting that it represents a strongly underestimated complication; furthermore, the present study showed a trend towards a higher incidence of TSH in patients who underwent robotic-assisted bariatric surgery.

Robotic‐assisted bariatric surgery: a systematic review

Bariatric laparoscopic surgery has been shown to lead to sustainable weight-loss in obese individuals. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery is proposed as the next major evolution in minimally invasive surgery. This study systematically reviews the literature regarding the feasibility and safety of robotic-assisted bariatric surgery in obese patients. A comprehensive search of electronic databases was completed for the period 2003 to 2010. Two independent reviewers assessed the studies for relevance, inclusion, and extracted data. After an initial screen of 297 titles, 22 studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 1253 patients with a mean preoperative body mass index of 46.6 kg/m(2) were obtained from 13 included studies. Major complications of malabsorptive procedures included eight anastomotic leaks (2.4%), bleeding (7/349 patients = 2%) and strictures/stenosis (13/430 patients = 3%). There were no reported deaths. This systematic review demonstrates that robotic-assisted bariatric surgery is both a safe and feasible option for severely obese patients.