Outcomes in conventional laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted revisional bariatric surgery: a retrospective, case-controlled study of the MBSAQIP database

The Trajectory of Revisional Bariatric Surgery: Open to Laparoscopic to Robotic

Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is the most effective therapeutic intervention for patients with obesity, with sleeve gastrectomy (SG) being the most commonly performed primary MBS procedure. Long-term studies have demonstrated that 15-20% of patients require revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) due to weight-related issues or surgical complications. Despite the gold standard being laparoscopic revision, there are other available approaches such as open or robotic-assisted. An extensive literature review was performed for articles from their inception to February 2024. A descriptive review of MBS procedures (SG, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), single anastomosis duodeno-ileostomy (SADI) and biliopancreatic diversion-duodenal switch (BPD-DS)) was carried out to report and compare outcomes between primary and revisional bariatric surgery. A similar review was conducted to compare outcomes of revisional approaches (open, laparoscopic, robotic). RYGB remains the dominant RBS with a similar safety profile compared to revisional SADI and BPD-DS. In terms of the RBS surgical approach, all three options showed comparable short and long-term outcomes, with robotic RBS being associated with longer operative time and variable length of stay. Additional long-term studies are required to further validate our conclusions.

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

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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%).

Conclusion

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.

Experience of Robotic Complex Revisional Bariatric Surgery in a High-Volume Center

PURPOSE

A revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) is necessary in about 28% of the patients. The role of robotic surgery in RBS is still a subject of debate. We aim to report the outcomes of robotic-assisted RBS at our institution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified patients who underwent robotic-assisted RBSs between January 1, 2016, and May 31, 2022. We analyzed patient demographics and indications for surgery. Measured outcomes included peri- and postoperative morbidity, comorbidity management, and weight loss outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 106 patients were included. Primary procedures were adjustable gastric band 44 (41.5%), sleeve gastrectomy 42 (39.6%), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) 18 (17%), duodenal switch (DS) 1 (0.9%), and vertical banded gastroplasty 1 (0.9%). RBSs performed included 85 (78.7%) RYGB, 16 (14.8%) redo-gastrojejunostomy, and 5 (4.6%) DS. The median time to revision was 8 (range 1-36) years, and the main indication was insufficient weight loss (49%). Median length of hospital stay was 2 (range 1-16) days, and 9 (8.5%) patients were readmitted during the first 30 days. Only 4 (3.7%) patients had early Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher adverse events. No anastomotic leaks were documented. Median excess weight loss was 35.1%, 42.23%, and 45.82% at the 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up. Of 57 patients with hypertension, 29 (50.9%) reduced their medication dosage, and 20/27 (74.1%) reduced their diabetes mellitus medication dosage. Finally, of the 75 patients with symptoms, 64 (85.3%) reported an improvement after the RBS.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted RBS is feasible, significantly improves patients' comorbidities and symptoms, and leads to considerable weight loss.

Impact of Robotic Assistance on Complications in Bariatric Surgery at Expert Laparoscopic Surgery Centers: A Retrospective Comparative Study With Propensity Score

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the way robotic assistance affected rate of complications in bariatric surgery at expert robotic and laparoscopic surgery facilities.

BACKGROUND

While the benefits of robotic assistance were established at the beginning of surgical training, there is limited data on the robot's influence on experienced bariatric laparoscopic surgeons.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study using the BRO clinical database (2008-2022) collecting data of patients operated on in expert centers. We compared the serious complication rate (defined as a Clavien score≥3) in patients undergoing metabolic bariatric surgery with or without robotic assistance. We used a directed acyclic graph to identify the variables adjustment set used in a multivariable linear regression, and a propensity score matching to calculate the average treatment effect (ATE) of robotic assistance.

RESULTS

The study included 35,043 patients [24,428 sleeve gastrectomy (SG); 10,452 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB); 163 single anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S)], with 938 operated on with robotic assistance (801 SG; 134 RYGB; 3 SADI-S), among 142 centers. Overall, we found no benefit of robotic assistance regarding the risk of complications (average treatment effect=-0.05, P =0.794), with no difference in the RYGB+SADI group ( P =0.322) but a negative trend in the SG group (more complications, P =0.060). Length of hospital stay was decreased in the robot group (3.7±11.1 vs 4.0±9.0 days, P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic assistance reduced the length of stay but did not statistically significantly reduce postoperative complications (Clavien score≥3) following either GBP or SG. A tendency toward an elevated risk of complications following SG requires more supporting studies.

Gastric Bypass Mortality Trends in Racial Cohorts: Are We Improving?

INTRODUCTION

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) continues to be safely performed in racial cohorts. However, studies continue to report differences in complications, with non-Hispanic black (NHB) patients having a higher rate of adverse outcomes, including mortality. It is unclear how these disparate outcomes have evolved over time. Our objective was to determine RYGB procedure and mortality trends in racial cohorts.

METHODS

Using the 2015 to 2019 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Project (MBSAQIP) database, we identified primary RYGB cases performed laparoscopically or robotically. Non-Hispanic white (NHW) and non-Hispanic black (NHB) patient cohorts were matched based on patient and surgical characteristics. Conditional logistic regression analysis was conducted on the matched pairs. Primary outcomes of interest included year-to-year all-cause and procedure-related mortality. Stata/MP 16.1 was utilized for analysis, and a p-value of < 0.05 and a 95% confidence interval that excluded 1 were considered significant.

RESULTS

A total of 148,829 RYGB cases in NHW (82.8%) and Black (17.2%) patients were analyzed. RYGB trends remain similar for NHB and NHW patients over 5 years. In matched cohorts, all-cause mortality (OR 2.23; 95% CI: 1.16-4.29), aggregate related readmission (OR 1.39; 95% CI: 1.27-1.51), related reintervention (OR 1.36; 95% CI: 1.19-1.56), and VTE (OR 1.86; 95% CI: 1.40-2.45) were more likely in NHB patients. During the study period, year-to-year mortality was higher in NHB patients compared to NHW patients.

CONCLUSION

Over a 5-year period, year-to-year mortality remains higher in NHB patients after RYGB. While bariatric outcomes continue to improve, outcome gaps between racial cohorts seem to persist.

Predictors of morbidity in revisional bariatric surgery and bariatric emergencies at an MBSAQIP-accredited community hospital

Introduction

Bariatric surgery revisions and emergencies are associated with higher morbidity and mortality compared to primary bariatric surgery. No formal outcome benchmarks exist that distinguish MBSAQIP-accredited centers in the community from unaccredited institutions.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted on 53 bariatric surgery revisions and 61 bariatric surgical emergencies by a single surgeon at a high-volume community hospital accredited program from 2018 to 2020. Primary outcomes were complications or deaths occurring within 30-days of the index procedure. Secondary outcomes included operative time, leaks, surgical site occurrences (SSOs), and deep surgical site infections.

Results

There were no significant differences in the demographic characteristics of the study groups. Mean operative time was significantly longer for revisions as compared to emergency operations (149.5 vs. 89.4 min). Emergencies had higher surgical site infection (5.7% vs. 21.3%, p < 0.05) and surgical site occurrence (SSO) (1.9% vs. 29.5%, p < 0.05) rates compared to revisions. Logistic regression analysis identified several factors to be predictive of increased risk of morbidity: pre-operative albumin < 3.5 g/dL (p < 0.05), recent bariatric procedure within the last 30 days (p < 0.05), prior revisional bariatric surgery (p < 0.05), prior duodenal switch (p < 0.05), and pre-operative COPD (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Bariatric surgery revisions and emergencies have similar morbidity and mortality, far exceeding those of the primary operation. Outcomes comparable to those reported by urban academic centers can be achieved in community hospital MBSAQIP-accredited centers.

Outcomes following robot-assisted versus laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: the New York State experience

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) represents more than half of all bariatric procedures in the USA, and robot-assisted sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) is becoming increasingly common. There is a paucity of evidence regarding postoperative surgical outcomes (> 30 days) in RSG patients, especially as these patients move between multiple hospital systems.

METHODS

Using 2012-2018 New York State's inpatient and ambulatory data from the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System, bivariate and multivariate analyses were employed to examine patient long-term outcomes, postoperative complications, and charges following RSG versus LSG in unmatched and propensity score-matched (PSM) samples.

RESULTS

Among the 72,157 minimally invasive sleeve gastrectomies identified, 2365 (2.6%) were RSGs. In the PSM sample (2365 RSG matched to 23,650 LSG), RSG cases were more likely to be converted to an open procedure (2.3% vs 0.2% LSG patients, p < 0.01) and had a longer mean length of stay (LOS; 2.1 vs. 1.8 days LSG, p < 0.01). Postoperative complications were not different between RSG and LSG patients, but the proportion of emergency room visits resulting in inpatient readmissions was higher among RSG patients (5.5% vs. 4.2% in LSG patients, p < .01). Among the super obese (body mass index ≥ 50) patients, conversions to open procedure and LOS were also significantly higher for RSG versus LSG cases. Average hospital charges for the index admission ($47,623 RSG vs $35,934 LSG) and cumulative changes for 1 year from the date of surgery ($57,484 RSG vs $43,769 LSG) were > 30% higher for RSG patients.

CONCLUSIONS

RSG patients were more likely to have conversions to open procedures, longer postoperative stay, readmissions, and higher charges for both the index admission and beyond, compared to LSG patients. No clear advantages emerged for the utilization of the robotic platform for either average risk or extremely obese patients.

Establishing robotic bariatric surgery at an academic tertiary hospital: a learning curve analysis for totally robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

The use of robotic systems in bariatric surgery has constantly increased over the last years. However, beside its technical advantages in morbidly obese patients the conclusive role of robotics in bariatric and metabolic surgery is still under controversial debate. This is an analysis of prospectively collected data of consecutive patients undergoing fully robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypasses (TR-RYGB) during the first year after implementation of a robotic bariatric program at a tertiary university hospital. All patients were operated by a previously untrained robotic but experienced laparoscopic bariatric surgeon using the daVinci Xi system (Intuitive Surgical, Sarl). Data recording included patient characteristics, operative and functional outcomes, complications and learning curves for surgeon and assistants. In total, 80 patients underwent primary or revisional robotic bariatric surgery. Seventy-two patients (90%) received a TR-RYGB. There were no major complications, re-interventions or readmissions. The overall complication rate was 2.5% (Clavien-Dindo grade I and II). The overall operation time was 140.7 ± 24.6 min and decreased significantly from the first to the last decade of procedures (procedure 1-10: 171.2 ± 26.3 min versus procedure 63-72: 116.0 ± 10.9 min, p < 0.0001). A stabilization of the learning curve was observed after 30 procedures for the surgeon and after five procedures for the bedside assistant. With immediate effect, TR-RYGB is a safe procedure with low complication rates for an experienced laparoscopic bariatric surgeon without prior robotic skills. Learning curves are steep and operation times can be effectively decreased by increasing the experience of the surgeon.

Bariatric Surgery Conversions in MBSAQIP Centers: Current Indications and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The demand for revisional bariatric surgery has increased, and bariatric conversions (BC) to a different procedure represent most of the revisional cases. The 2020 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditfnation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database was expanded to include additional variables on BC. This study aims to analyze the indications and outcomes of BC.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the 2020 MBSAQIP database was performed. Patients who underwent BC were included in the analysis. Index procedures, rates, and indications for BC of the different bariatric operations were described. Outcomes of the most frequent BC were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 168,548 bariatric surgeries were done; 20,387 (12.1%) were revisional, and from those 15,031 (73.7%) were BC. The most converted index operations were sleeve gastrectomy (SG) (49.3%) and adjustable gastric banding (AGB) (45.9%). The most frequent conversions were SG to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (40.3%) for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) (54.2%) and weight loss failure (WLF) (35.8%), AGB to SG (27%) or RYGB (16.2%) for WLF (67% and 61.3%, respectively), and SG to biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (3.2%) or single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass (2%) for WLF (91.2% and 92.4%, respectively). Postoperative overall morbidity, serious morbidity, reoperation, and mortality rates ranged from 5.3 to 20.8%, 2.3 to 19.2%, 1.5 to 10%, and 0 to 0.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

BC represents the most frequent revisional bariatric procedure. GERD and WLF are the main causes for BC. Further research is needed to define the ideal BC according to the index procedure and indication.

Predictability of Endoscopic Success for Foregut and Bariatric Leak in an Experienced Quaternary Center

BACKGROUND

Leaks of the esophagus and stomach are difficult to manage and associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Endoscopic therapy can manage these leaks without surgical intervention. Our goal is to create a scoring tool to aid in predicting the success of endoscopic therapy in these patients.

STUDY DESIGN

An IRB-approved prospectively maintained database was retrospectively reviewed for all patients treated for gastrointestinal leaks from July 2013 to January 2021, including patients treated for esophageal and stomach leaks. Endpoints include success of leak closure for patients treated solely by endoscopic therapy (ET) compared with surgical therapy as failed endoscopic therapy (FET). A multivariable logistic regression model was fitted to identify independent risk factors for predicting success of endoscopic therapy, and a scoring calculator was developed.

RESULTS

There were 80 patients (60 females) with a mean age of 50 years. The ET group included 59 patients (74%), whereas the FET group included 21 patients (26%). Patient demographics, comorbidities, surgical history, and timing of leak diagnosis were used. Multivariable analysis resulted in 4 variables associated with higher probability of successful endoscopic leak management without need for additional surgery. These included increased age, lower BMI, lack of previous bariatric surgery, and quicker identification of the leak. Consequently, a scoring nomogram was developed with values from 0 to 22.

CONCLUSION

Our data show the development of a scoring calculator capable of quantifying the likelihood of success treating foregut and bariatric leaks with endoscopic therapies. This can be used clinically to guide treatment decisions.

Minimally Invasive Revisional Bariatric Surgery in a MBSAQIP Accredited High-Volume Center

Background

With the rising number of bariatric surgeries performed annually, there has also been an increase in revisional bariatric surgeries (RBS). The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and postoperative outcomes of RBS performed with a minimally invasive approach.

Methods

Retrospective analysis on a prospectively collected database of patients who underwent minimally invasive RBS between 2012 and 2019. Primary endpoints were conversion rate, major morbidity, mortality, and 30-day reoperation rate. Comparative analysis of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) conversion to sleeve gastrectomy (SG) vs. conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) was performed.

Results

A total of 221 patients underwent minimally invasive RBS, 137 (62%) laparoscopically and 84 (38%) robotically. The most common RBS were LAGB to SG (59.3%) and LAGB to RYGB conversions (16.7%). The main indication was weight loss failure (88.7%). Conversion rate, major morbidity, and mortality were 0.9, 3.2, and 0.4%, respectively. Urgent reoperation was required in 3.2% of cases. Total weight loss at 1 and 2-years follow- were 14.3 and 17.3%, respectively. Comparative analysis of LAGB conversion to SG vs. RYGB showed similar major morbidity (SG: 2.3% vs. RYGB 0%, p = 1). Greater total weight loss was achieved in LAGB to RYGB conversions at 1-year (SG: 14.8% vs. RYGB 25.3%, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Minimally invasive RBS can be performed safely in a broad patient population with low conversion and complication rates, and improved weight loss outcomes. LAGB to RYGB conversions are associated with greater weight loss. Further randomized trials are needed to draw more conclusive recommendations.

Current Status of Robot-Assisted Revisional Bariatric Surgery

Bariatric surgery has been demonstrated to be effective in achieving significant weight loss and remission of obesity-related comorbidities. However, a percentage of patients fail to lose enough weight, regain weight, or experience postoperative complications, requiring additional interventions. Revisional bariatric surgeries (RBS) involve the wide spectrum of procedures that aim to treat complications of the index operation or achieve further weight loss. These are technically challenging procedures due to adhesions of the internal organs, reduced working space, and a distorted anatomy. Indications, timing, and type of operation for RBS are not standardized, and there is no consensus on the best surgical approach. Some authors claim a robotic platform could be advantageous in these types of procedures that are performed in reduced, deep operating fields, or those requiring precision and accuracy. This review examines the most current and representative literature on the outcomes of robot-assisted RBS. Included studies demonstrate the safety and feasibility of the robotic approach for RBS. However, long operative times and high costs remain major drawbacks of the device. Finally, if we consider that many centers have not yet completed the learning curve for robot-assisted RBS, the potential for improved outcomes seems promising.

Advantages of a robotic approach compared with laparoscopy gastrectomy for patients with high visceral fat area

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer surgery for obese patients is regarded as a technically challenging procedure. The morbidity after gastrectomy has been reported to be significantly higher in patients with high visceral fat area (VFA). Robotic gastrectomy (RG) is expected to be advantageous for complicated operations. However, whether RG is superior to conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for patients with visceral fat obesity remains unclear. The present study aimed to clarify the impact of RG on the short- and long-term outcomes of patients with high VFAs.

METHODS

This study included 1306 patients with clinical stage I/II gastric cancer who underwent minimally invasive gastrectomy between January 2012 and December 2020. The patients were subclassified according to VFA. The short- and long-term outcomes of RG were compared with those of LG in two VFA categories.

RESULTS

This study included 394 (high-VFA, 151; low-VFA, 243) and 882 patients (high-VFA, 366; low-VFA, 516) in the RG and LG groups, respectively. RG was associated with a significantly longer operative time than LG (high-VFA, P < 0.001; low-VFA, P < 0.001). The incidence rates of overall and intra-abdominal infectious complications in the high-VFA patients were lower in the RG group than in the LG group (P = 0.019 and P = 0.048, respectively) but not significantly different from those in the low-VFA patients. In the multivariate analysis, LG was identified as the only independent risk factor of overall (odds ratio [OR] 3.281; P = 0.012) and intra-abdominal infectious complications (OR 3.462; P = 0.021) in the high-VFA patients. The overall survival of high-VFA patients was significantly better in the RG group than in the LG group (P = 0.045).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with visceral fat obesity, RG appears to be advantageous to LG in terms of reducing the risk of complications and better long-term survival.

Robotic-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Revisional Bariatric Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis on Perioperative Outcomes

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the role of robotic-assisted surgery in patients undergoing revisional bariatric surgery (RBS). According to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was performed: (("sleeve"AND "gastr*")OR "bariatric"OR "gastric bypass")AND("robot*"OR "DaVinci"OR "Da Vinci")AND("revision*"OR "conversion*"). In this review, six studies with 29,890 patients were included (2459 in the robotic group). No difference in postoperative complications (RR 1.070, 95%CI 0.930-1.231, p = 0.950), conversions to open surgery (RR 1.339, 95%CI 0.736-2.438, p = 0.339), length of stay (SMD - 0.041, 95%CI - 0.420-0.337, p = 0.831) or operative time (RR 0.219, 95%CI - 0.539-0.977, p = 0.571) was found. This systematic review and meta-analysis showed no significant advantage of robotic-assisted RBS; on the other hand, it showed a non-inferior efficacy compared to standard laparoscopy.

Revisional Bariatric Surgery

Revisional bariatric surgery is a growing subset of all bariatric procedures. Although revisions can be associated with higher morbidity rates and less optimal outcomes than those seen with primary procedures, they can be safely performed, with excellent outcomes and improved quality of life for patients. Facility and familiarity with revisional principles and techniques are necessary components of bariatric surgical practice.

Role of Robotic Surgery in Complex Revisional Bariatric Procedures

PURPOSE

Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) is becoming more common, with an estimated increase of more than 300% from 2017 to 2018. For these complex procedures, the role of robotics is still debated. The purpose of our study is to report the safety and effectiveness of robotic-assisted RBSs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of electronic medical records was conducted for robotic-assisted RBSs performed at the Mayo Clinic in Florida, between January 1, 2016, and January 1, 2020. Peri- and postoperative data were analyzed, reviewing patient characteristics, indications for surgery, and outcomes.

RESULTS

From 160 RBSs performed during the study period, 67 were robotic-assisted and met inclusion criteria. Primary procedures included sleeve gastrectomy (26 [38.8%]), adjustable gastric band (24 [35.8%]), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (14 [20.9%]), vertical-banded gastroplasty (2 [3.0%]), and duodenal switch (1 [1.5%]). RBSs performed were Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (49 [73.1%]), redo gastrojejunostomy (14 [20.9%]), and duodenal switch (4 [6.0%]). Rate of conversion to open procedure and rate of readmission 1 month after surgery were 6.0% and 7.5%, respectively. Rate of 30-day Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher adverse events was 4.5%. No anastomotic leaks were documented. Fifty-two patients presented with preoperative symptoms, and 69.2% reported improvement after RBS. Mean (SD) excess weight loss was 57.62% (23.80) 12 months after RBS.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted RBSs are safe with low major adverse event rates. Symptom resolution and weight loss outcomes are acceptable.

Robotic Roux en Y gastric bypass can be safe and cost-effective in a rural setting: clinical outcomes from a community hospital bariatric program

Robotic Roux en Y gastric bypass (R-RYGB) is becoming more common due to the shifting trend toward robotic gastrointestinal surgery. The goal of this study is to determine if R-RYGB can be safely implemented at a robotic bariatric surgery program in a community hospital with similar results to laparoscopic RYGB (L-RYGB) in a cost-effective manner. A total of 50 R-RYGB procedures were performed with the Xi and the X da Vinci systems and compared with 50 L-RYGB cases by a single surgeon from October 2018 to January 2020 at an acute-care community hospital in a rural setting with a high-volume MBSAQIP-accredited program. A retrospective chart review was conducted with IRB approval and statistical analysis of 30-day morbidity, mortality, re-interventions, and resolution of co-morbidities, with financial analysis of cost reduction. Both groups were similar in age, gender, ASA class, co-morbidities, and body mass index (BMI). There was no mortality or anastomotic leak. The 30-day morbidity for R-RYGB was 10.0% with a re-operation rate of 4.0%. There were no conversions to open, and the mean hospital length of stay was 2.22 ± 1.19 days. There were no statistically significant differences between R-RYGB and L-RYGB with respect to any measured outcome, including intraoperative time (121.94 vs. 113.52, respectively; p = 0.1495). However, when incidences and percentages were used, R-RYGB had improved performance for most of the outcomes measuring safety. There was an average cost reduction of $816.90 per case (total saving of $40,845.00 for 50 cases) in the R-RYGB by transitioning from a hybrid approach to a totally robotic approach. R-RYGB appears to be as safe as L-RYGB and can be performed in a rural community hospital while maintaining a low complication rate, achieving a high co-morbidity resolution rate, and saving costs with a totally robotic approach.

Robotic Revisional Bariatric Surgery: a High-Volume Center Experience

PURPOSE

The number of bariatric revisional procedures is growing. Scarce evidence is available regarding the role and postoperative outcomes of robotic-assisted revisional bariatric surgery (RRBS). The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and postoperative outcomes of RRBS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of patients who underwent RRBS between 2012 and 2019 was performed. Primary outcomes of interest were 30-day major morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay (LOS), urgent reoperation rates, and percentage of total weight loss (%TWL).

RESULTS

RRBS was performed in 76 patients; among these 60 (78.9%) underwent conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (C-RYGB). Failed weight loss (76%) and gastroesophageal reflux (9.2%) were the main indications for revision. Primary bariatric procedures included gastric band (LAGB) (50%), sleeve gastrectomy (SG) (40.8%), and RYGB (6.6%). Major morbidity and mortality rates were 3.9% and 1.3%, respectively. Mean LOS was 2.1 days, and 3 patients (3.9%) required urgent reoperation. The %TWL at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months was 10.2%, 16.6%, 18.3%, and 22.4% respectively. Comparative analysis of C-RYGB after failed LAGB and SG showed similar morbidity. Higher readmission rates (SG: 22.2% vs. LAGB: 0%, p = 0.007) and lower %EWL at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months were found in C-RYGB after SG.

CONCLUSION

This is one of the largest single-center series of RRBS published in the literature; the data indicate that robotic approach for revisional bariatric surgery is safe and helps achieving further weight loss. RRBS outcomes might be influenced by the primary procedure.

Outcomes in racial and ethnic minorities after revisional robotic-assisted metabolic and bariatric surgery: an analysis of the MBSAQIP database

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is being performed with increased frequency in the United States, including for revisional MBS. However, little is known about perioperative outcomes between racial and ethnic cohorts after revisional robotic-assisted MBS.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of our study was to determine if there are racial differences in outcomes after robotic-assisted revisional MBS.

SETTING

University Hospital, United States.

METHODS

Using the 2015-2017 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database, we identified patients undergoing revisional MBS by a robotic-assisted approach. Univariate analyses were performed of unmatched and matched racial and ethnic cohorts, comparing black versus white patients and Hispanic versus white patients.

RESULTS

Of 2027 robotic-assisted revisional MBS cases in the database, 1922 were included in our analysis, including 67%, 22.6%, and 10.4% white, black, and Hispanic patients, respectively. At baseline, there were some differences in patient characteristics between racial and ethnic cohorts. After propensity matching, outcomes between black and white patients were similar, except for higher rates of superficial surgical site infection among white patients (P = .05) and higher rates of organ space surgical site infection in black patients (P = .05). Outcomes were also similar between matched white and Hispanic patients, except for a higher bleeding in white patients (2% versus 0%, P = .04). There were no mortality or morbidity differences between racial and ethnic cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Morbidity and mortality after robotic-assisted revisional MBS do not seem to be mediated by race or ethnicity.

From the Knife to the Endoscope-a History of Bariatric Surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Current bariatric surgical practice has developed from early procedures, some of which are no longer routinely performed. This review highlights how surgical practice in this area has developed over time.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review outlines early procedures including jejuno-colic and jejuno-ileal bypass, initial experience with gastric bypass, vertical banded gastroplasty and biliopancreatic diversion with or without duodenal switch. The role laparoscopy has played in the widespread utilization of surgery for treatment of obesity will be described, as will the development of procedures which form the mainstay of current bariatric surgical practice including gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy and adjustable gastric banding. Endoscopic therapies for the treatment of obesity will be described. By outlining how bariatric surgical practice has developed over time, this review will help practicing surgeons understand how individual procedures have evolved and also provide insight into potential future developments in this field.

Pros and Cons of Robotic Revisional Bariatric Surgery

Introduction

Revisional procedures in bariatric surgery are regarded as technically more demanding and riskier than primary interventions. While the use of the surgical robot has not yet proven to be advantageous in primary bariatric interventions, the question remains whether its use is justified for more complex revisional procedures.

Objective

To show that revisional bariatric surgery can be performed safely using the da Vinci® Xi surgical system.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively recorded data for revisional bariatric procedures between January 2016 and November 2019.

Results

Of 78 revision operations, four (5.1%) were performed by open surgery, 30 (38.5%) by laparoscopic surgery, and 44 (56.4%) by robotic surgery. A comparative analysis of robotic (n = 41) versus laparoscopic (n = 18) revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypasses (rRYGB) revealed significant differences favoring the robotic approach for operative time (130.7 vs. 167.6 min), C-reactive protein values at days 1 (27.9 vs. 49.1 mg/L) and 2 (48.2 vs. 83.6 mg/L) after surgery, and length of stay (4.9 vs. 6.2 days). Lower complication rates (Clavien-Dindo II-V) were found after rRRYGB (7.3 vs. 22.2%, not significant).

Conclusions

Revisional bariatric surgery using a robotic system is safe. The operative time performing rRRYGB is significantly shorter than rLRYGB in our experience. Otherwise, results were largely comparable. Due to different indications, different index operations and a wide range of revisional procedures, further studies are necessary to confirm these results.