» Articles » PMID: 35499639

Robotic Vs. Laparoscopic Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, Outcomes over 5 Years in Nearly 800,000 Patients

Overview
Journal Obes Surg
Date 2022 May 2
PMID 35499639
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: Studies assessing outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic bariatric metabolic surgery (BMS) have been limited by the relatively small percentage of robotic cases. However, in recent years, the number of robotic BMS cases has doubled. We report the largest US study comparing robotic versus laparoscopic outcomes in BMS over the longest time period (5 years).

Methods: Analysis of the MBSAQIP database was undertaken. This included information on 791,423 patients from 2015-2019 in the USA. Within this retrospective case-control study, 13.7% of SG and 16.6% of RYGB cases were done robotically.

Setting: USA, MBSAQIP database.

Results: Robotic BMS increased mean operative time by 26 min for SG and 40 min for RYGB. However, this did not increase the 30-day venous thromboembolism (VTE) or organ dysfunction complications between the 2 groups. Robotic SG had slightly higher risks of multiple infectious complications (OR 1.26 to 1.76). Robotic RYGB had slightly lower infectious complications and transfusion requirements. Robotic BMS had higher 30-day readmission rates and 30-day reoperative rates for both SG and RYGB.

Conclusions: Both robotic SG and RYGB were found to have significantly longer operative times than laparoscopic SG and RYGB. Potential outcome benefits from robotic BMS can include a reduction in infectious complications and transfusion requirements with robotic RYGB cases. SGs were found to have slightly higher infectious complications.

Citing Articles

Gastric bypass performed with different surgical platforms during different periods.

Alomari M, Eroraha A, Spaulding A, Edwards M J Robot Surg. 2025; 19(1):75.

PMID: 39976871 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-025-02232-5.


Racial disparities in the utilization and outcomes of robotic bariatric surgery: an 8-year analysis of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Improvement Program data.

AbuHasan Q, Miller P, Li W, Burney C, Yuce T, Stefanidis D Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2024; 21(2):158-165.

PMID: 39395845 PMC: 11820883. DOI: 10.1016/j.soard.2024.09.002.


Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Outcome Trends Over Time: Are We Improving?.

Edwards M, Falstin M, Alomari M, Spaulding A, Brennan E Obes Surg. 2024; 34(7):2596-2606.

PMID: 38844716 DOI: 10.1007/s11695-024-07334-x.


Robotic versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for resectable gastric cancer: a randomized phase 2 trial.

Lu J, Xu B, Zheng H, Li P, Xie J, Wang J Nat Commun. 2024; 15(1):4668.

PMID: 38821945 PMC: 11143299. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-49013-6.


Robot-assisted vs laparoscopic bariatric procedures in super-obese patients: clinical and economic outcomes.

Marincola G, Procopio P, Pennestri F, Gallucci P, Voloudakis N, Ciccoritti L J Robot Surg. 2024; 18(1):34.

PMID: 38231461 PMC: 10794378. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-023-01748-y.


References
1.
Wilson E, Sudan R . The evolution of robotic bariatric surgery. World J Surg. 2013; 37(12):2756-60. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-013-2125-3. View

2.
Bailey J, Hayden J, Davis P, Liu R, Haardt D, Ellsmere J . Robotic versus laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) in obese adults ages 18 to 65 years: a systematic review and economic analysis. Surg Endosc. 2013; 28(2):414-26. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-013-3217-8. View

3.
Li K, Zou J, Tang J, Di J, Han X, Zhang P . Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Obes Surg. 2016; 26(12):3031-3044. DOI: 10.1007/s11695-016-2408-5. View

4.
Rogula T, Koprivanac M, Janik M, Petrosky J, Nowacki A, Dombrowska A . Does Robotic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Provide Outcome Advantages over Standard Laparoscopic Approaches?. Obes Surg. 2018; 28(9):2589-2596. PMC: 6132787. DOI: 10.1007/s11695-018-3228-6. View

5.
Smeenk R, van t Hof G, Elsten E, Feskens P . The Results of 100 Robotic Versus 100 Laparoscopic Gastric Bypass Procedures: a Single High Volume Centre Experience. Obes Surg. 2015; 26(6):1266-73. DOI: 10.1007/s11695-015-1933-y. View