Physician Wellness During a Pandemic

INTRODUCTION

We are currently in the midst of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Research into previous infectious disease outbreaks has shown that healthcare workers are at increased risk for burnout during these dire times, with those on the front lines at greatest risk. The purpose of this prospective study was to determine the effect that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on the wellness of emergency physicians (EP).

METHODS

A survey was sent to 137 EPs in a multi-hospital network in eastern Pennsylvania. We compared 10 primary and two supplemental questions based on how the physicians had been feeling in the prior 2-3 weeks (COVID-19 period) to the same questions based on how they were feeling in the prior 4-6 months (pre-COVID-19 period).

RESULTS

We received 55 responses to the survey (40.1% response rate). The study found that during the pandemic, EPs felt less in control (p-value = 0.001); felt decreased happiness while at work (p-value 0.001); had more trouble falling asleep (p-value = 0.001); had an increased sense of dread when thinking of work needing to be done (p-value = 0.04); felt more stress on days not at work (p-value <0.0001); and were more concerned about their own health (p-value <0.0001) and the health of their families and loved ones (p-value <0.0001).

CONCLUSION

This study showed a statistically significant decrease in EP wellness during the COVID-19 pandemic when compared to the pre-pandemic period. We need to be aware of evidence-based recommendations to help mitigate the risks and prevent physician burnout.

Cost Analysis of Robotic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in a Single Academic Center: How Expensive Is Expensive?

BACKGROUND

Although the use of da Vinci robotic platforms in bariatric surgery is gaining momentum, it is still controversial because of financial concerns.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of our study is to evaluate the cost of robotically assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (R-RYGB) versus conventional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (L-RYGB).

METHODS

We analyzed consecutive primary bariatric patients who underwent R-RYGB and compared them with patients who underwent L-RYGB during the same time period. Primary outcomes were overall cost for length of stay, operating time, and supplies. Direct cost data was generated using the StrataJazz reporting module, which is fed daily from EPIC, our electronic health record system, and contains hospital-based data only. Secondary outcomes were 30-day rates of complications, reoperations, and readmissions.

RESULTS

We found no difference in primary or secondary outcomes following R-RYGB and L-RYGB. The overall cost for R-RYGB and L-RYGB was not statistically different (median total cost for R-RYGB and L-RYBG was $6431.34 and $6349.09, P > 0.05, respectively). Operating time cost was significantly higher for R-RYGB compared with L-RYGB ($2248.51 versus $19,836.29, respectively, P < 0.0001, respectively). R-RYGB had lower cost of supplies as well as a shorter length of stay compared with L-RYGB (mean 1.5 versus 1.7 days, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study revealed no cost difference between R-RYGB and L-RYGB, with a decreased cost of supplies and trend toward lower hospital stay favoring R-RYGB. Further studies are needed to evaluate the outcomes of R-RYGB compared with L-RYGB; however, the cost of robotic surgery may not be a prohibitive factor.

Thirty-Day Outcomes of Bariatric Surgery in Adolescents: a First Look at the MBSAQIP Database

INTRODUCTION

Bariatric surgery is the only effective treatment of severe obesity. The number of adolescents undergoing bariatric surgery is increasing. However, bariatric surgery in adolescents is controversial.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of bariatric surgery in adolescents based on the MBSAQIP database (Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Project).

METHODS

We analyzed the 2015-2017 MBSAQIP database; patients ≤ 19 years of age were included in our analysis. Primary outcomes were 30-day serious adverse events (SAEs), organ space infection (OSI), re-intervention, and re-operation rates. Secondary outcomes included operation length, hospital stay, and re-admission rates. We conducted separate Mann-Whitney rank sums tests, chi-square, or Fisher's exact tests as appropriate, with p < .05 denoting statistical significance.

RESULTS

A total of 1983 adolescent patients were included in our analysis. The average age and BMI were 18.1 and 47.5, respectively. Of adolescent patients, 21.7% underwent laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and 78.3% underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). The 30-day SAE and readmission rates were significantly lower for LSG compared with LRYGB (2.9% and 2.6% vs 6.5% and 5.6%, respectively; p < 0.05). The 30-day reoperation rate was also lower for LSG compared with LRYGB albeit not significant (1.1% and vs 2.3%; p = 0.05). The 30-day intervention rate for LSG was significantly lower, however, compared with LRYGB (1.2% vs 3%; p < 0.05). Compared with adult patients, > 19 years old (n = 353,726), we found no difference in our outcomes. However, adolescents had significantly shorter operation length.

CONCLUSION

In adolescents, LSG had fewer SAE, re-intervention, and readmission rates compared with LRYGB. There was no difference in outcomes between adolescents and adults.

Outcomes of robotic surgery in revisional bariatric cases: a propensity score-matched analysis of the MBSAQIP registry

In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the number of Revisional Bariatric Surgery (RBS) cases performed to address complications and weight recidivism. The use of the da Vinci robotic platform, considered controversial by many, may offer advantages in RBS. The objective of our study is to compare the outcomes of Robotic RBS (R-RBS) to Laparoscopic RBS (L-RBS). Using the 2015-2017 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database, we selected all RBS and we matched R-RBS to L-RBS using a propensity score matching system to create balanced groups. Our primary outcomes were 30-day Serious Adverse Events (SAE), 30-day Organ Specific Infection (OSI), 30-day reoperation and 30-day interventions. Our secondary outcomes included length of operation and 30-day readmission. We conducted separate Mann-Whitney rank sums tests or chi-square tests and Fisher exact test. R-RBS and L-RBS included 220 patients each. The overall incidence of 30-day SAEs, 30-day OSIs, 30-day reoperations, 30-day interventions were lower for R-RBS (6.4%, 0.9%, 2.7% and 2.3%, respectively) compared L-RBS (7.7%, 1.4%, 3.6% and 3.6%, respectively). Subgroup analysis showed that R-RBS had a lower rate of complications for the Gastric Bypass procedure but not for Sleeve gastrectomy cases. However, 30-day readmission was higher for R-RBS compared to L-RBS (9.1% vs 6.4% respectively). None of the analyses reached statistical significance. R-RBS took significantly longer compared to L-RBS (169 min vs 138 min, p < 0.05). Our study shows that R-RBS has lower complication rate albeit non-significant as compared to L-RBS.

Evolution of outcomes of robotic bariatric surgery: first report based on MBSAQIP database

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is increasingly being used in bariatric surgery; however, the benefits of robotic surgery in bariatrics remain controversial.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of robotic bariatric surgery with laparoscopic surgery over a 3-year period between 2015 and 2017 using the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database.

SETTING

University Hospital, United States.

METHODS

Using the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database for the years 2015 to 2017, we included patients who underwent primary robotic or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures. Patients were divided into either robotic or laparoscopic groups. Primary outcomes included serious adverse events, organ space infection (OSI), readmissions, reoperations, and interventions at 30 days. Secondary outcomes included operation length and hospital stay. We performed propensity score matching based on clinically relevant preoperative variables to create balanced groups before analysis. We analyzed our data using separate Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests with year as the stratification variable and conducted subgroup analyses for robotic patients only using separate t tests for proportions, with P < .05 denoting statistical significance.

RESULTS

Of the 315,647 patients available for comparison in the 2015 to 2017 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program Participant User Files, there were 41,364 matched in the final data set. Using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, we found a significant association between year of performance and outcomes for OSI, 30 day-readmission, and intervention. The incidence of OSI after laparoscopic and robotic cases was .3% and .4%, respectively, in 2015 versus .2% and .3%, respectively, in 2017 (P = .04, odds ratio = 1.49). Thirty-day readmission for robotic cases was 5.2% in 2015 and 4.0% in 2017 (P < .05, odds ratio = 1.16). The incidence of 30-day intervention for robotic cases also dropped from 2.2% in 2015 to 1.3% in 2017 (P < .05, odds ratio = 1.37). Using a Student's t test, there was also a statistically significant decrease in serious adverse events in the robotic group between 2015 and 2017 (incidence of serious adverse events in 2015 was 5.2% versus 3.7% in 2017, P < .05). Rate of 30-day reoperation for the robotic group did change over time but was comparable to the laparoscopic group (1.4% versus 1.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed between 2015 and 2017 the outcomes of robotic bariatric surgery have improved as evidenced by the significant decrease in the rate of OSI, readmissions, and interventions at 30 days.

Manipulation of Breath Alcohol Tests: Can Specific Techniques Alter Breath Alcohol Content?

Objective:

The most common form of measurement of breath alcohol content (BrAC) is through the use of a diode catheter. This study aims to test the accuracy of breath alcohol analysis through different manipulations.

Methods:

BrAC was measured after individuals consumed each standardized beer until they reached a 0.1 BrAC. Then, the individuals were breath analyzed while not providing full effort, using the side of their mouths, immediately after hyperventilating, 5 and 10 min after hyperventilation, immediately after a sip of water, and 5 min after that water.

Results:

There were 54 individuals. Two baselines were used as the controls. The first baseline was a mean BrAC of. 104 with standard deviation of +0.008 for poor effort, side of mouth, and hyperventilating. The second baseline used for drinking water manipulations was a BrAC of 0.099 + 0.11. Poor effort (mean + standard deviation: 0.099 ± 0.10, P < 0.0001), immediately after hyperventilating (0.086 ± 0.011, P < 0.0001), 5 min after hyperventilating (0.099 ± 0.009, P < 0.0001), and 10 min after hyperventilating (0.099 ± 0.011, P < 0.0001) were all found to be statistically significant in their ability to lower BrAC. Both immediately after water (0.084 ± 0.011, P < 0001) and 5 min after drinking water (0.096 ± 0.13, P < 0.0001) were found to have significantly altered the BrAC.

Conclusion:

Our research shows that manipulations can alter BrAC readings significantly. Breath analyzer operators should be cognizant of these methods that may lead to falsely lower BrAC readings.

Outcomes of robotic bariatric surgery in super-obese patients: first report based on MBSAQIP database

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery in the super-obese (SO) patient population represents a challenge. Although the robotic platform is increasingly used for these patients, there are limited data on outcomes compared with conventional laparoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

Our study compared the safety and short-term outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic platforms for SO patients compared with morbidly obese patients based on the 2015 to 2017 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database.

SETTING

University Hospital, United States.

METHODS

We evaluated all primary robotic and laparoscopic cases and extracted 30-day outcomes in patients with body mass index <50 and ≤50 kg/m². For our primary analysis, we used the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method with surgery type Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) versus sleeve gastrectomy (SG) as the stratification variable to determine the association between body mass index categories and outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 355,278 patients were included in our analysis. For the robotic RYGB (R-RYGB) group (n = 6645) and R-SG (n = 15,984) there were 1674 SO patients (25.2%) and 3688 SO patients (23.1%), respectively.For the laparoscopic RYGB (LRYGB) group (n = 95,374) and LSG group (n = 237,275), there were 24,991 (26.2%) and 51,524 SO patients (21.7%), respectively. The incidence of serious adverse events in SO patients for R-RYGB and LRYGB groups was 7.6% versus 7.2% (P > .05) and 4% versus 3.5% (P > .05) for R-SG and L-SG, respectively. The incidence of organ space infection in SO patients for R-RYGB and LRYGB groups was .5% versus .4% (P > .05) and .4% versus .2% (P < .05) for R-SG and LSG, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on 2015 to 2017 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program data, we found no difference in outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic approaches in SO patients. There was a higher incidence of serious adverse events in SO patients compared with morbidly obese patients for both approaches.

30-Day Outcomes of Revisional Bariatric Stapling Procedures: First Report Based on MBSAQIP Data Registry

INTRODUCTION

The number of bariatric revisional cases has nearly doubled since 2011, and now comprises 13.6% of the total number of cases. The objective of this study is to evaluate the outcomes and safety of the two most common stapling revisional procedures, namely, sleeve and gastric bypass in comparison to primary stapling procedures using the MBSAQIP data registry.

METHODS

We reviewed all the sleeve and gastric bypass cases entered between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015, in the MBSAQIP data registry. We, then, identified sleeve and bypass patients who have had a previous bariatric procedure. Demographics and 30 day outcomes of all sleeve and gastric bypass patients were analyzed. We conducted within group comparisons comparing primary sleeve gastrectomy (PS) and primary gastric bypass (PB) patients to revisional sleeve (RS) and revisional gastric bypass (RB) patients, respectively. We, then, conducted group comparisons comparing RS to RB patients.

RESULTS

The total number of patients analyzed was 141,577 (98,292 or 69% sleeve patients and 43,285 or 31% gastric bypass patients). Among the sleeve patients, 92,666 (94%) had a PS and 5626 (6%) had RS. Among the bypass patients, 39,567 (91%) had a PB and 3718 patients (9%) had RB. 30-day readmission rate of RS was significantly higher as compared to PS (4.1 vs 0.4%, p < 0.05). The incidence of at least one complication requiring reoperation or reintervention within 30 days following RS was twice as high as compared to PS (1.9 and 2% for RS vs 0.9 and 1.1% for PS respectively, p < 0.05). Length of stay and 30 day mortality rates for PS and RS were the same. 30-day readmission rate of RB as compared to PB was 8.3 vs 6.3% (p < 0.05). Also, the incidence of at least one complication requiring reoperation or reintervention following RB was 3.9 and 4%, respectively vs 2.4 and 2.7% for PB (p < 0.05). In addition, readmission rates and unplanned admission rates to the ICU were significantly higher for RB compared to RS (8.3 and 2% for RB vs 4.1 and 0.9% for RS respectively, p < 0.05). The incidence of at least one reoperation or one intervention following RB were also significantly higher compared to RS (3.9 vs 1.9% and 4 vs 2% respectively, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Revisional stapling procedures are safe but the rates of complications following RS and RB are twice as high compared to PS and PB. Also, RB are more likely to develop complications compared to RS.

Cost analysis of robotic sleeve gastrectomy (R-SG) compared with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (L-SG) in a single academic center: debunking a myth!

BACKGROUND

Although use of the da Vinci robotic platform in bariatric surgery is gaining momentum, there are financial concerns.

OBJECTIVES

Our retrospective study evaluated the cost of robotically assisted sleeve gastrectomy (R-SG) versus conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (L-SG).

SETTING

Center of Excellence bariatric surgery center in Allentown, Pennsylvania.

METHODS

We analyzed consecutive patients who underwent primary R-SG and compared them with L-SG patients. Primary outcomes were overall cost for length of stay, operating time, and supplies. Secondary outcomes were 30-day complications, reoperations, and readmissions.

RESULTS

We had no adverse events in either group. The overall cost for R-SG and L-SG was not statistically different (mean total cost for R-SG and L-SG was $5308.99 and $4918.88, respectively). Operating time cost was significantly higher for R-SG compared with L-SG ($1340 versus $112 for R-SG and L-SG, respectively). R-SG had a shorter length of stay compared with L-SG (1.4 versus 1.5 d, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study revealed no difference in cost R-SG and L-SG, with a trend toward shorter length of stay for R-SG over time.

A novel risk prediction model for 30-day severe adverse events and readmissions following bariatric surgery based on the MBSAQIP database

BACKGROUND

Although bariatric surgery is safe, some patients fear serious complications.

OBJECTIVES

This retrospective study used the 2015 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Improvement Project (MBSAQIP) database to evaluate patient outcomes for gastric bypass (GB) and sleeve gastrectomy and to develop a risk prediction model for serious adverse events (SAEs) and readmission rates 30 days after surgery.

SETTING

MBSAQIP national patient database.

METHODS

We created separate exploratory multivariable logistic regression models for SAEs and readmissions. We then externally validated both models using the 2016 MBSAQIP Participant Use Data File.

RESULTS

Significant predictors of SAEs were preoperative body mass index (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.07, P < .0001); GB surgery (AOR 2.08, P < .0001); cardiovascular disease (AOR 1.43, P < .0001); smoking (AOR 1.12, P = .04); diabetes (AOR 1.15, P = .0001); hypertension (AOR 1.17, P < .0001); limited ambulation (AOR 1.48, P < .0001); sleep apnea (AOR 1.12, P = .001); history of pulmonary embolism (AOR 2.81, P < .0001); and steroid use (AOR 1.40, P = .001). Significant predictors of readmissions were GB surgery (AOR 1.81, P < .0001); female sex (AOR 1.26, P < .0001); diabetes (AOR 1.08, P = .04); hypertension (AOR 1.11, P = .004); preoperative body mass index (AOR 1.05, P < .0001); sleep apnea (AOR 1.11, P = .002); history of pulmonary embolism (AOR 2.35, P < .0001); cardiovascular disease (AOR 1.61, P < .0001); smoking (AOR 1.14, P = .01); and limited ambulation (AOR 1.55, P < .0001). External validation supported these covariates, with similar model discriminative power.

CONCLUSIONS

Our exploratory regression models may be used by clinicians to counsel patients about surgical risks, although future external validation should occur in non-North American populations.

Preoperative CHA2DS2-VASc Score Predicts Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation after Lobectomy

Background Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) affects 10 to 20% of noncardiac thoracic surgeries and increases patient morbidity and costs. The purpose of this study is to determine if preoperative CHA2DS2-VASc score can predict POAF after pulmonary lobectomy for nonsmall cell lung cancer.

Methods Patients with complete CHA2DS2-VASc data who underwent lobectomies from January 2007 to January 2016 at a single institution were analyzed in a retrospective case–control study using a prospective database. An independent samples t-test was used to compare the mean CHA2DS2-VASc scores of POAF and non-POAF groups. A multivariable logistic regression analysis (MVA) evaluated the independent contribution of variables of the CHA2DS2-VASc score in predicting POAF. Chi-square test with univariate odds ratios (ORs) was used to determine a statistically significant cutoff score for predicting POAF.

Results Of 525 total patients, 82 (15.6%) developed POAF (mean CHA2DS2-VASc score: 2.7) and 443 (84.4%) did not develop POAF (mean score: 2.3). Mean difference between these groups was significant at 0.43 (p = 0.01; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.09–0.76). In the MVA, significant predictors of POAF were age 65 to 74 years (adjusted OR [aOR] = 2.45; 95% CI: 1.31–4.70; p = 0.006) and age ≥75 years (aOR = 3.11; 95% CI: 1.62–5.95; p = 0.0006). Patients with CHA2DS2-VASc scores ≥5 had significantly increased OR for POAF (OR = 2.59; 95% CI: 1.22–5.50).

Conclusions Preoperatively calculated CHA2DS2-VASc score can predict POAF in patients undergoing pulmonary lobectomy. Age is the most statistically significant independent predictor, and patients with scores ≥5 have significantly increased risk. Trials for POAF prophylaxis should target this population.

The Impact of a Standardized Checklist on Transition of Care During Emergency Department Resident Physician Change of Shift

Introduction

Transitions of patient care during physicians' change of shift introduce the potential for critical information to be missed or distorted, resulting in possible morbidity. The Joint Commission, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, and the Society of Hospital Medicine jointly encourage a structured format for patient care sign-out. This study's objective was to examine the impact of a standardized checklist on the quality of emergency medicine (EM) resident physicians' patient-care transition at shift change.

Methods

Investigators developed a standardized sign-out checklist for EM residents to complete prior to sign out. This checklist included topics of diagnoses, patient-care tasks to do, patient disposition, admission team, and patient code status. Two EM attending physicians, the incoming and departing, assessed the quality of transitions of care at this shift change using a standardized assessment form. This form also assessed overall quality of sign-out using a visual analog scale (VAS), based on a 10-centimeter scale. For two months, we collected initial, status quo data (pre-checklist [PCL] cohort) followed by two months of residents using the checklist (post-checklist [CL] cohort).

Results

We collected data for 77 days (July 1, 2015 - November 11, 2015), 38 days of status quo sign-out followed by 39 days of checklist utilization, comprised of 1,245 attending assessments. Global assessment of sign-out for the CL was 8 compared to 7.5 for the PCL. Aspects of transition of care that implementation of the sign-out checklist impacted included the following (reported as a frequency): "To Do" (PCL 84.3%, CL 97.8%); "Disposition" (PCL 97.2%, CL 99.4%); "Admit Team" (67.1%, CL 76.2%); and "Attending Add" (PCL 23.4%, CL 11.3%).

Conclusion

Implementation of a sign-out checklist enhanced EM resident physician transition of care at shift end by increasing the frequency of discussion of critical tasks remaining for patient care, disposition status, and subjective assessment of quality of sign-out.

30-day outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: First analysis based on MBSAQIP

BACKGROUND

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most popular bariatric procedure in the United States. Although standardized, variation exists in how the staple line is managed. Robotic approaches to SG (RSG) are increasing, though benefits compared with the conventional laparoscopic approach (LSG) remain controversial.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the safety of RSG versus LSG using the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program data registry, controlling for variation in staple-line management.

SETTING

University health network, United States.

METHODS

SG cases from January 1 to December 31, 2016, in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program data registry were included. Demographic characteristics and 30-day outcomes were analyzed with separate Mann-Whitney rank sums tests, χ² tests, or Fisher's exact tests, with P < .05 denoting statistical significance. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to control for method of staple-line treatment.

RESULTS

Of the 107,726 patients who underwent SG, 7385 were RSG. Treatment of the staple line was associated with a significantly lower rate of bleeding, with odds ratios of .69 and .58 for staple-line reinforcement alone and staple-line reinforcement plus oversewing, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed RSG had a higher rate of organ space infection than LSG (odds ratio 2.07). Otherwise, RSG did not significantly differ from LSG save for a longer median operative time (89 versus 63 min, respectively, P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

RSG is a growing alternative to the conventional laparoscopic approach. According to the 2016 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database, the RSG carries a higher risk of organ space infection. The reasons behind this finding require further study.

Robotic gastric bypass is getting better: first results from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program

BACKGROUND

The use of robotic platforms in performing laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) is increasing, though their safety compared with the conventional laparoscopic approach remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate perioperative data and 30-day outcomes of conventional and robot-assisted LRYGB using the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program data registry.

SETTING

University health network, United States.

METHODS

We reviewed all conventional and robot-assisted LRYGB cases entered between January 1 and December 31, 2016 in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program data registry. Demographic characteristics and 30-day outcomes were analyzed based on separate Mann-Whitney rank sums tests, χ², or Fisher's exact tests as appropriate, with P ≤ .05 denoting statistical significance with no adjustment for multiple testing.

RESULTS

Of the 39,425 patients who underwent LRYGB, 2822 were robot-assisted. The robot-assisted approach required significantly more time (138 versus 108 min, P < .0001). Rates of organ space infection, bleeding, and other significant adverse events after the conventional and robot-assisted approaches were .3% versus .5% (P = .13), 1.1% versus .8% (P = .11), and 2.3% versus 2.3% (P = .96), respectively. There were also no significant differences in the rates of mortality, length of stay, reoperation, or readmission between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted LRYGB is an increasingly popular alternative to the conventional laparoscopic approach. According to the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database, the early safety of these 2 techniques is equal, although the robotic approach requires more operative time.