Robotic Bariatric Surgery Reduces Morbidity for Revisional Gastric Bypass when Compared to Laparoscopic: Outcome of 8-year MBSAQIP Analysis of over 40,000 Cases

Overview

Journal Surg Endosc

Publisher Springer

Specialties Gastroenterology
General Surgery
Radiology

Date 2024 Aug 23

PMID 39179689

Authors

Graham J Spurzem

Ryan C Broderick

Emily K Kunkel

Hannah M Hollandsworth

Bryan J Sandler

Garth R Jacobsen

Santiago Horgan

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: Robotic-assisted metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is gaining popularity. Revisional MBS is associated with higher perioperative morbidity compared to primary MBS. The optimal surgical approach to minimize complications in these complex cases is unclear. The goal of this study was to assess robot utilization in revisional MBS and compare laparoscopic and robotic revisional MBS outcomes in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database.

Methods: A retrospective review of the MBSAQIP database was performed identifying revisional sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) cases from 2015 to 2022. Primary MBS, open/emergent cases, cases converted to another approach, and combined cases other than esophagogastroduodenoscopy were excluded. 30-Day outcomes for laparoscopic and robotic cases were compared using multivariate logistic regression adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities, and operative variables.

Results: 41,404 Cases (14,474 SG; 26,930 RYGB) were identified. From 2015 to 2022, the percentage of revisional SG and RYGB cases performed robotically increased from 6.1% and 7.3% to 24.2% and 32.0% respectively. Laparoscopic SG had similar rates of overall morbidity, leak, bleeding, readmission, reoperation, and length of stay compared to robotic. Laparoscopic RYGB had significantly higher rates of overall morbidity (6.2% vs. 4.8%, p < 0.001, AOR 0.80 [0.70-0.93]), blood transfusion (1.5% vs. 1.0%, p < 0.05, AOR 0.74 [0.55-0.99]), superficial incisional SSI (1.2% vs. 0.4%, p < 0.001, AOR 0.30 [0.19-0.47]), and longer length of stay (1.87 vs. 1.76 days, p < 0.001) compared to robotic. Laparoscopic operative times were significantly shorter than robotic (SG: 86.4 ± 45.8 vs. 113.5 ± 51.7 min; RYGB: 130.7 ± 64.7 vs. 165.5 ± 66.8 min, p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Robot utilization in revisional bariatric surgery is increasing. Robotic surgery has lower postoperative morbidity and shorter length of stay in revisional RYGB when compared to laparoscopic. Robotic platforms may have the capacity to improve the delivery of care for patients undergoing revisional bariatric surgery.

References

Eisenberg D, Shikora S, Aarts E, Aminian A, Angrisani L, Cohen R . 2022 American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) and International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO): Indications for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2022; 18(12):1345-1356. DOI: 10.1016/j.soard.2022.08.013. View

Gloy V, Briel M, Bhatt D, Kashyap S, Schauer P, Mingrone G . Bariatric surgery versus non-surgical treatment for obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2013; 347:f5934. PMC: 3806364. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f5934. View

Pinto-Bastos A, Conceicao E, Machado P . Reoperative Bariatric Surgery: a Systematic Review of the Reasons for Surgery, Medical and Weight Loss Outcomes, Relevant Behavioral Factors. Obes Surg. 2017; 27(10):2707-2715. DOI: 10.1007/s11695-017-2855-7. View

Brethauer S, Kothari S, Sudan R, Williams B, English W, Brengman M . Systematic review on reoperative bariatric surgery: American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Revision Task Force. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2014; 10(5):952-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.soard.2014.02.014. View

Karmali S, Brar B, Shi X, Sharma A, de Gara C, Birch D . Weight recidivism post-bariatric surgery: a systematic review. Obes Surg. 2013; 23(11):1922-33. DOI: 10.1007/s11695-013-1070-4. View

Cheung D, Switzer N, Gill R, Shi X, Karmali S . Revisional bariatric surgery following failed primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a systematic review. Obes Surg. 2014; 24(10):1757-63. DOI: 10.1007/s11695-014-1332-9. View

Spyropoulos C, Kehagias I, Panagiotopoulos S, Mead N, Kalfarentzos F . Revisional bariatric surgery: 13-year experience from a tertiary institution. Arch Surg. 2010; 145(2):173-7. DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.2009.260. View

Mor A, Keenan E, Portenier D, Torquati A . Case-matched analysis comparing outcomes of revisional versus primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Endosc. 2012; 27(2):548-52. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-012-2477-z. View

Inabnet 3rd W, Belle S, Bessler M, Courcoulas A, Dellinger P, Garcia L . Comparison of 30-day outcomes after non-LapBand primary and revisional bariatric surgical procedures from the Longitudinal Assessment of Bariatric Surgery study. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2010; 6(1):22-30. PMC: 2836857. DOI: 10.1016/j.soard.2009.10.007. View

10.

Shimizu H, Annaberdyev S, Motamarry I, Kroh M, Schauer P, Brethauer S . Revisional bariatric surgery for unsuccessful weight loss and complications. Obes Surg. 2013; 23(11):1766-73. DOI: 10.1007/s11695-013-1012-1. View

11.

Sheetz K, Claflin J, Dimick J . Trends in the Adoption of Robotic Surgery for Common Surgical Procedures. JAMA Netw Open. 2020; 3(1):e1918911. PMC: 6991252. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.18911. View

12.

Bauerle W, Mody P, Estep A, Stoltzfus J, El Chaar M . Current Trends in the Utilization of a Robotic Approach in the Field of Bariatric Surgery. Obes Surg. 2022; 33(2):482-491. PMC: 9792156. DOI: 10.1007/s11695-022-06378-1. View

13.

Gray K, Moore M, Elmously A, Bellorin O, Zarnegar R, Dakin G . Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Robotic Revisional Bariatric Surgery in a Complex Patient Population. Obes Surg. 2018; 28(7):1852-1859. DOI: 10.1007/s11695-018-3119-x. View

14.

Buchs N, Morel P, Azagury D, Jung M, Chassot G, Huber O . Laparoscopic versus robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: lessons and long-term follow-up learned from a large prospective monocentric study. Obes Surg. 2014; 24(12):2031-9. DOI: 10.1007/s11695-014-1335-6. View

15.

Nasser H, Munie S, Kindel T, Gould J, Higgins R . Comparative analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery: perioperative outcomes from the MBSAQIP database. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2020; 16(3):397-405. DOI: 10.1016/j.soard.2019.11.018. View

16.

Acevedo E, Mazzei M, Zhao H, Lu X, Edwards M . Outcomes in conventional laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted revisional bariatric surgery: a retrospective, case-controlled study of the MBSAQIP database. Surg Endosc. 2019; 34(4):1573-1584. PMC: 7223848. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-019-06917-5. View

17.

Seton T, Mahan M, Dove J, Villanueva H, Obradovic V, Falvo A . Is Robotic Revisional Bariatric Surgery Justified? An MBSAQIP Analysis. Obes Surg. 2022; 32(12):3863-3868. DOI: 10.1007/s11695-022-06293-5. View

18.

Clapp B, Liggett E, Jones R, Lodeiro C, Dodoo C, Tyroch A . Comparison of robotic revisional weight loss surgery and laparoscopic revisional weight loss surgery using the MBSAQIP database. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2019; 15(6):909-919. DOI: 10.1016/j.soard.2019.03.022. View

19.

Bertoni M, Marengo M, Garofalo F, Volonte F, La Regina D, Gass M . Robotic-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Revisional Bariatric Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis on Perioperative Outcomes. Obes Surg. 2021; 31(11):5022-5033. DOI: 10.1007/s11695-021-05668-4. View

20.

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