» Articles » PMID: 35701675

Comparison of Robot-assisted Sleeve Gastrectomy Outcomes in Multiple Staple Line Treatment Modalities from 2015 to 2019: a 5-year Propensity Score-adjusted MBSAQIP® Analysis

Overview
Journal Surg Endosc
Publisher Springer
Date 2022 Jun 14
PMID 35701675
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Robot-assisted sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) is an increasingly common approach to sleeve gastrectomy (SG). Staple line reinforcement (SLR) is well-discussed in laparoscopic SG literature, but not RSG- likely due to the absence of dedicated robotic SLR devices. However, most RSG cases report SLR. This retrospective analysis compares outcomes in RSG cases reporting (1) any staple line treatment (SLT) vs none and (2) SLR vs oversewing.

Methods: MBSAQIP was queried for adults who underwent RSG from 2015 to 2019. Open procedures, Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery, hand-assisted, single-incision, concurrent procedures, and illogical BMIs were excluded (n = 3444). Final sample included 52,354 patients. Two comparisons were made: SLT (n = 34,886) vs none (n = 17,468) and SLR (n = 22,217) vs oversew (n = 5620). We fitted multivariable regression models to estimate risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) and performed propensity score analysis with inverse probability of treatment weight based on patient factors.

Results: Most RSG cases utilized SLT (66.6%). Cases with SLT had a reduced risk of organ space SSI (RR 0.68 [0.49, 0.94]), 30-day reoperation (RR 0.77 [0.64, 0.93]), 30-day re-intervention (RR 0.80 [0.67, 0.96]), sepsis (RR 0.58 [0.35, 0.96]), unplanned intubation (RR 0.59 [0.37, 0.93]), extended ventilator use (RR 0.46 [0.23, 0.91]), and renal failure (RR 0.40 [0.19, 0.82]) compared to no-treatment cases. In single-treatment cases (n = 27,837), most utilized SLR (79.8%). Cases with oversew had a higher risk of any SSI (RR 1.70 [1.19, 2.42]), superficial incisional SSI (RR 1.71 [1.06, 2.76]), septic shock (RR 6.47 [2.11, 19.87]), unplanned intubation (RR 2.18 [1.06, 4.47]), and extended ventilator use (> 48 h) (RR 4.55 [1.63, 12.71]) than SLR.

Conclusions: Our data suggest SLT in RSG is associated with reduced risk of some adverse outcomes vs no-treatment. Among SLT, SLR demonstrated lower risk than oversewing. However, risk of all-cause mortality, cardiac arrest, and unplanned ICU admission were not significant.

Citing Articles

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.


Outcomes of Staple Line Reinforcement Following Robotic Assisted Sleeve Gastrectomy Based on MBSAQIP Database.

Faugno-Fusci D, Perrone J, Michaud A, Stoltzfus J, Alvarado L, El Chaar M Obes Surg. 2023; 33(9):2662-2670.

PMID: 37515695 DOI: 10.1007/s11695-023-06740-x.

References
1.
Felsenreich D, Bichler C, Langer F, Gachabayov M, Prager G . Sleeve Gastrectomy: Surgical Technique, Outcomes, and Complications. Surg Technol Int. 2020; 36:63-69. View

2.
Gagner M, Kemmeter P . Comparison of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy leak rates in five staple-line reinforcement options: a systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2019; 34(1):396-407. PMC: 6946737. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-019-06782-2. View

3.
Myneni A, Brophy T, Harmon B, Boccardo J, Burstein M, Schwaitzberg S . The impact of disclosure of conflicts of interest in studies comparing robot-assisted and laparoscopic cholecystectomies-a persistent problem. Surg Endosc. 2022; 37(2):1515-1527. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09440-2. View

4.
Watson R . The Use of the Overstitch for Bariatric Weight Loss. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2019; 30(1):115-128. DOI: 10.1016/j.giec.2019.08.005. View

5.
Berger E, Clements R, Morton J, Huffman K, Wolfe B, Nguyen N . 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. 2016; 264(3):464-73. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001851. View