Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted primary bariatric-metabolic surgery. Are we still expecting to overcome the learning curve? A propensity score-matched analysis of the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is becoming increasingly popular in bariatric-metabolic surgery. However, its superiority regarding postoperative outcomes compared with conventional laparoscopy has not been clearly proven. With growing adoption of robotic surgery and improved technologies, benefits should become more evident.

OBJECTIVES

Evaluate readmission and reoperation rates after bariatric-metabolic surgery performed by conventional laparoscopy versus robotic-assisted from 2015 to 2021.

SETTING

Academic institution.

METHODS

The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) was reviewed for primary bariatric operations performed with conventional laparoscopy versus robotic-assisted. Postoperative outcomes were compared in a propensity score-matched sample.

RESULTS

Of 1,059,348 cases meeting inclusion criteria, 921,322 (87%) were conventional laparoscopic bariatric-metabolic surgeries, which were matched 1:1 with robotic-assisted cases (138,026). Reoperation (odds ratio [OR] 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.15, P = .0463), postoperative morbidity (OR 1.07; 95% CI 1.01-1.12, P = .0193), readmission (OR 1.14; 95% CI 1.09-1.18, P < .0001), and emergency department visits (OR 1.06; 95% CI 1.03-1.09, P = .0003) at 30 days postoperatively were significantly greater for robotic-assisted cases. Robotic-assisted cases had a similar mortality rate at 30 days postoperatively and length of stay >3 days when compared with conventional laparoscopic cases. Similar results were observed in cases from 2020 to 2021, except for reoperation and emergency department visits, which showed no difference between groups and length of stay >3 days, which was greater in robotic-assisted cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show a greater readmission and reoperation rate and greater morbidity at 30 days postoperatively in robotic-assisted bariatric-metabolic surgery compared with conventional laparoscopy. Analyzing only cases performed between 2020 and 2021, robotic surgery also does not show superiority over conventional laparoscopy.

Outcomes of same-day discharge in bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND

Restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic influenced a shift to same-day discharge in bariatric surgery. Current studies show conflicting findings regarding morbidity and mortality. We aim to compare outcomes for same-day discharge versus admission after bariatric surgery.

METHODS

Subjects included patients who underwent primary laparoscopic or robotic-assisted sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-En-Y gastric bypass at an academic center. The inpatient group included patients discharged postoperative day one, and the outpatient group included patients discharged on the day of surgery. Primary outcomes included the number of emergency room visits, reoperations, IV fluid treatments, readmissions, and mortality within 30 days. Secondary outcomes were morbidity, including skin and soft tissue infection, pulmonary embolism, and acute kidney injury.

RESULTS

1225 patients met the inclusion criteria. In the gastric sleeve group, 852 subjects were outpatients and 227 inpatients. In the gastric bypass group, 70 subjects were outpatients, and 40 were inpatients. The mean age was 44.63 (17.38-85.31) years, and the mean preoperative BMI was 46.07 ± 8.14 kg/m2. The subjects in the outpatient group had lower BMI with fewer comorbidities. The groups differed significantly in age, BMI, and presence of several chronic comorbidities. The inpatient and outpatient groups for each surgery type did not differ significantly regarding reoperations, IV fluid treatments, or 30-day mortality. The inpatient sleeve group demonstrated a significantly higher readmission percentage than the outpatient group (4.6% vs 2.1%; p = 0.02882). The inpatient bypass group showed significantly greater ER visits (21.7% vs 10%; p = 0.0108). The incidence of adverse events regarding the secondary outcomes was not statistically different.

CONCLUSION

Same-day discharge after bariatric surgery is a safe and reasonable option for patients with few comorbidities.

Comparison between DaVinci® and Hugo™-RAS Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in bariatric surgery

The application of a robotic platform in the bariatric surgical field is intended to enhance the already established advantages of minimally invasive surgery in terms of both technical and clinical outcomes. These advantages are especially relevant for technically challenging multiquadrant operations such as Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB). Consequently, robotic-assisted surgery has emerged as a possible application for bariatric surgeries. The study attempts to assess feasibility and safety of the Hugo™-Robotic-Assisted Surgery System (Hugo™-RAS) platform compared to the DaVinci® Surgical System (DaVinci®-SS) with a focus on complication rates and operative times. We retrospectively reviewed bariatric procedures performed from January 2013 until December 2023. We included all robotic RYGBs performed using Hugo™-RAS and DaVinci®-SS platforms. The study utilized Propensity Score Matching (PSM) analysis to address bias in selection, matching patients based on age, gender, body mass index, comorbidities and past abdominal operations. One hundred thirty-five patients were identified: 90 DaVinci®-SS and 45 Hugo™-RAS procedures. After PSM, each group consisted of 45 patients. There was no discernible disparity observed in relation to early (≤ 30 days) postoperative complications rate (p = 1), mean operative time (for docking time, console time and total operative time: p = 0.176, p = 0.678, p = 0.229, respectively) and postoperative hospital stay (p = 0.052) between DaVinci®-RSS and Hugo™-RAS procedures. Our results suggest that application of both Hugo™-RAS and DaVinci®-SS robotic platforms to RYGB is related to comparable safety profiles. Although DaVinci®-SS remains the most widely adopted platform in clinical practice, this study underscores the potential role of the Hugo™-RAS to provide effective solutions in robotic bariatric procedures.

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastric bypass in bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis on perioperative outcomes

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted surgery has emerged as a compelling approach to bariatric surgery. However, current literature has not consistently demonstrated superior outcomes to laparoscopic bariatric surgery to justify its higher cost. With its mechanical advantages, the potential gains from the robotic surgical platform are likely to be apparent in more complex cases such as gastric bypass, especially revisional cases.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the literature and evaluate the peri-operative outcomes of patients with obesity undergoing robotic gastric bypass versus laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery.

SETTING

Systematic review.

METHODS

A literature search of Embase, Medline, Pubmed, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies comparing outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic gastric bypass for obesity were included.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight eligible studies comprised a total of 82,155 patients; 9051 robotic bypass surgery (RBS) versus 73,104 laparoscopic bypass surgery (LBS) were included. All included studies compared Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. RBS was noted to have higher reoperation rate within 30 days (4.4% versus 3.4%; odds ratio 1.31 [95% CI, 1.04-1.66]; P = .027; I2 = 43.5%) than LBS. All other endpoints measured (complication rate, anastomotic leak, anastomotic stricture, surgical site infections, hospital readmission, length of stay, operative time, conversion rate and mortality) did not show any difference between RBS and LBS.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in key outcome measures in robotic versus laparoscopic gastric bypass. RBS was associated with a slightly higher reoperation rate and there was no reduction in overall complication rate with the use of robotic platform.

Robotic-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass with the novel platform HugoTM RAS: preliminary experience in 15 patients

Robotic assisted surgery is a rapidly developing field in bariatric surgery. Its wide diffusion has led to the development and standardisation of robotic assisted approaches for various bariatric operations. However, further application has been limited thus far due to issues of cost-effectiveness and accessibility. The introduction of new robotic platforms may help overcome those obstacles. In this study, we present the first fifteen cases of Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) operations performed with the new Hugo™ RAS system (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA). From January to March 2023, consecutive patients scheduled for minimal invasive Roux-en-Y-Bypass were randomly selected and underwent the procedure robotic-assisted with the new platform. No exclusion criteria were applied. Seven female and eight male patients with a median BMI of 42 (range: 36-50) and obesity-related comorbidities in eight cases underwent RYGB. The median docking time was 7 min (range: 6-8.5) and the median console time was 100 min (range: 70-150). Procedures were performed without intraoperative complications and no conversion to laparoscopy or open surgery was noted. Operative times were indicative of a steep learning curve. No early post-operative complications were observed. Based on our initial experience, RYGB with the Hugo™ RAS system is promising and may be integrated in established robotic programmes without requiring a long adaptation period.

ROBOTIC VERSUS LAPAROSCOPIC ROUX-EN-Y-GASTRIC BYPASS: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY IN A SINGLE CENTER

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery is the best treatment option for patients with obesity. As a result of the advancement of technology, the robotic gastric bypass presents promising results, despite its still high costs.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to compare patients submitted to a robotic versus a laparoscopic gastric bypass at a single center by a single surgeon.

METHODS

This retrospective study collected data from the medical records of 221 patients (121 laparoscopic procedures versus 100 with daVinci platform). The variables analyzed were sex, age, body mass index, comorbidities, surgical time, length of stay, and complications.

RESULTS

The mean surgical time for patients in the robotic group was shorter (102.41±39.44 min versus 113.86±39.03 min, p=0.018). The length of hospital stay in robotic patients was shorter (34.12±20.59 h versus 34.93±11.74 h, p=0.007). There were no serious complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The group submitted to the robotic method had a shorter surgical time and a shorter hospital stay. No difference was found regarding strictures, bleeding, or leakage.

Do all roads lead to Rome?: A retrospective analysis on surgical technique in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

BACKGROUND

New York University Langone Health has three accredited bariatric centers, with altogether ten different bariatric surgeons. This retrospective analysis compares individual surgeon techniques in laparoscopic or robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) to identify potential associations with perioperative morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

All adult patients who underwent RYGB between 2017 and 2021 at NYU Langone Health campuses were evaluated via electronic medical records and MBSAQIP 30-day follow-up data. We surveyed all ten practicing bariatric surgeons to analyze the relationship between their techniques and total adverse outcomes. Bleeding, SSI, mortality, readmission, and reoperation were specifically sub-analyzed via logistic regression.

RESULTS

54 (7.59%) out of 711 patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic RYGB encountered an adverse outcome. Lower adverse outcomes were observed with laparoscopic approach, creating the JJ anastomosis first, flat positioning, division of the mesentery, Covidien™ laparoscopic staplers, gold staples, unidirectional JJ anastomosis, hand-sewn common enterotomy, 100-cm Roux limb, 50-cm biliopancreatic limb, and routine EGD. Lower bleeding rates were observed with flat positioning, gold staples, hand-sewn common enterotomy, 50-cm biliopancreatic limb, and routine EGD. Lower readmission rates were observed in laparoscopic, flat positioning, Covidien™ staplers, unidirectional JJ anastomosis, and hand-sewn common enterotomy. Gold staples had lower reoperation rates. Otherwise, there was no statistically significant difference in SSI.

CONCLUSION

Certain surgical techniques in RYGB within our bariatric surgery group had significant effects on the rates of total adverse outcomes, bleeding, readmission, and reoperation. Our findings warrant further investigation into the aforementioned techniques via multivariate regression models or prospective study design.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by the inherent nature of its retrospective and univariate statistical design. We did not account for the interaction between techniques. The sample size of surgeons was small, and follow-up of 30 days was relatively short. We did not include patient characteristics in the model or control for surgeon skill.

Feasibility of Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass with the novel robotic platform HUGO™ RAS

Introduction

Robotic assisted surgery is a rapidly developing field of minimally invasive bariatric surgery in the last 20 years. Its wide diffusion has led to the development and standardization of robotic assisted approaches for bariatric operations. In this study, we present the first four Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) operations performed with the new Hugo™ RAS system (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA).

Methods

In January and February 2023, 4 consecutive patients scheduled for minimal invasive Roux-en-Y-Bypass were selected and underwent the procedure robotic-assisted with the new platform. No exclusion criteria were applied.

Results

Four patients, two females and two males, underwent RYGB with a median BMI of 40 Kg/m² (range: 36-46) and diabetes mellitus in two cases. The median docking time was 8 min (range: 7-8.5) and the median console time was 127.5 min (range: 95-150). A description of the operating theatre, robotic arms and docking setup is provided. Procedures were performed without intraoperative complications and no conversion to laparoscopy or open surgery was noted. No additional ports were needed to be placed. System's function and docking were uneventful. No early post-operative complications were observed.

Conclusions

Based on our initial experience, RYGB with the Hugo™ RAS system is feasible. This study provides the configurations necessary to perform RYGB with the Hugo™ RAS system as well as general information and insights from our preliminary experience.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: laparoscopic vs. robot assisted

There is controversy over the possible advantages of the robotic technology in revisional bariatric surgery. The aim of this study is to report the experience of a high-volume bariatric center on revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass with robot-assisted (R-rRYGB) and laparoscopic (L-rRYGB) approaches, with regards to operative outcomes and costs. Patients who underwent R-rRYGB and L-rRYGB between 2008 and 2021 were included. Patients' baseline characteristics and perioperative data were recorded. The primary endpoint was the overall postoperative morbidity. A full economic evaluation was performed. One-way and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed on laparoscopic anastomotic leak and reoperation rates. A total of 194 patients were included: 44 (22.7%) L-rRYGB and 150 (77.3%) R-rRYGB. The robotic approach was associated with lower overall complication rate (10% vs. 22.7%, p = 0.038), longer operative time, and a reduced length of stay compared to L-rRYGB. R-rRYGB was more expensive than L-rRYGB (mean difference 2401.1€, p < 0.001). The incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) was 18,906.3€/complication and the incremental cost-utility ratio was 48,022.0€/QALY (quality-adjusted life years), that is below the willingness-to-pay threshold. Decision tree analysis showed that L-rRYGB was the most cost-effective strategy in the base-case scenario; a probability of leak ≥ 13%, or a probability of reoperation ≥ 14% following L-rRYGB, or a 12.7% reduction in robotic costs would be required for R-rRYGB to become the most cost-effective strategy. R-rRYGB was associated with higher costs than L-rRYGB in our base-case scenario. However, it is an acceptable alternative from a cost-effectiveness perspective.

[Robotic sleeve gastrectomy: single-center experience]

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate safe introduction of a new technology (Da Vinci robotic system) into laparoscopic bariatric practice.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We analyzed treatment outcomes in patients with morbid obesity who underwent robot-assisted sleeve gastrectomy between 2020 and 2023. The same team of surgeons performed all operations. Evolution of technique and preparation of the operating theatre were recorded. Demographic data of patients, surgery time (docking and total surgery time), simultaneity of intervention, intraoperative and postoperative complications, as well as weight loss after 6 months were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 15 robot-assisted sleeve gastrectomies between 2020 and 2023. Of these, 14 patients underwent surgery without complications. One patient was diagnosed with portal vein thrombosis that required anticoagulation. Median surgery time 194 [173.5; 241] min, period between incision and docking - 35 [30; 36] min. The length of hospital-stay was 3 days. The median weight loss after 6 months was 37.5% [29.5; 51.2].

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates safe introduction of a new technology to prepare the bariatric team for more complex surgical interventions in the future.

Robotic and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass after learning curve: 30-day and 12-month outcomes

This study compares laparoscopic RYGB (L-RYGB) and robotic RYGB (R-RYGB) performed by the same team after the learning curve in both approaches. A retrospective cohort study was done, and the surgical outcome was analyzed in 30 days and 12 months for patients with similar characteristics and an equal number of cases in each group (233 cases). Four hundred and sixty-six patients were included in this study. Mean age was 46.8 ± 8.3 years and 2/3 were women. R-RYGB presented a longer operative time (150.7 versus 135.4 min; p < 0.001) with no differences in the length of hospital stay. The main 30-day complications were G-J stricture, leakage, and intraluminal bleeding. The reoperation rate was 1.6% by leakage (G-J anastomosis) and was higher in R-RYGB (2.1 versus 0.4; p = 0.108). The multivariate analysis identified that L-RYGB was the factor independently associated with a LOS longer than 2 days (odds ratio: 4.7, 95% CI: 2.6-8.2, p value < 0.001). At the FU time (12 months), no differences between the groups were found. The outcomes between the groups after the learning curve did not present differences in terms of 30 days and 12 months of FU when same preoperative characteristics and an equal number of cases in each group are considered. L-RYGB was the unique independent factor associated with long LOS.

Robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: surgical technique and short-term experience from 329 cases

OBJECTIVE

minimally invasive bariatric surgery is clearly superior over open procedures including better early outcomes. Different surgical approaches are used to treat the severely obese, having Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) being a highly frequent procedure. Robotic surgery overcomes some laparoscopic limitations adding ergonomics, articulating instruments and a three-dimensional high definition camera. Based on our vast robotic experience, we present our referred group case series and a standardized Robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (rRYGB) technique as well as its outcomes.

METHODS

a review of a prospective maintained database was conducted in patients submitted to robotic Roux en Y bariatric surgery between April 2015 and July 2019. Surgical technique is described and illustrated. We also reported patients demographics, outcomes and its follow-up.

RESULTS

a Retrospective analysis identified 329 patients submitted to Robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Both da Vinci Si and Xi platforms were used. Mean age was 34.4 years, with median BMI of 44.2 kg/m2. Mean console time was 102 min and there was no conversion. No surgical hospital readmission rates were seen in the first 30 days.

CONCLUSION

this study represents our initial experience of robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (rRYGB), its short outcomes and a standardized surgical technique. Our results encourage that rRYGB is technically feasible and safe, and might offer some advantages showing good outcomes and minimal complications.

Racial disparity in causes for readmission following bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND

Readmission after bariatric surgery is not cost-effective and is a preventable quality metric within standardized practices. However, reasons for readmission among racial/ethnic bariatric cohorts are less explored and understood.

OBJECTIVE

Our study objective was designed to compare reasons for readmission among racial/ethnic cohorts of bariatric patients.

SETTING

Academic hospital.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of the 2015-2018 MBSAQIP databases to identify Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) cases. Regression analyses determined predictors of all-cause and bariatric-related readmissions. Reasons for readmission were compared between racial/ethnic cohorts using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

More than 550 000 RYGB and SG cases were analyzed. The readmission rate was 3%-4%. Black race, RYGB, robot-assisted approach, and numerous co-morbidities were independently associated with readmission (P <.05). In RYGB cases, black (versus white) patients were at decreased odds of leak-related (P < .001) and cardiovascular-related (P < .001) readmissions but at increased odds of readmissions related to renal complications (P < .001). Hispanic (versus white) patients had a higher likelihood of venous thromboembolism-related readmissions (P < .001). In SG cases, black (versus white) patients had a similar lower likelihood of readmission related to leaks or cardiovascular complications but higher odds of readmission related to renal complications (P < .001). Hispanic (versus black) patients had a higher likelihood of leak-related readmissions (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Readmission reasons after bariatric surgery vary by race/ethnicity. Perioperative pathways to mitigate complications, including readmissions, should consider these disparate findings.

Robotic bariatric surgery for the obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bariatric surgery (BS) in patients with obesity by robotic bariatric surgery (RBS) compared with laparoscopic bariatric surgery (LBS).

METHODS

The study was performed through searching in Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase database and Cochrane Library until March 31, 2020 comparing RBS with LBS. Data were calculated on the following endpoints: operative time, length of hospital stay, reoperation within 30 days, overall complications, leak, stricture, pulmonary embolisms, estimated blood loss and mortality. Data as relative risks (OR), or weighted mean difference (WMD) were summarized with 95% confidence interval (CI). Risk of publication bias was assessed through standard methods.

RESULTS

Thirty eligible trials including 7,239 robotic and 203,181 laparoscopic surgery cases showed that RBS was referred to attain longer operative time [WMD = 27.61 min; 95%CI (16.27-38.96); P < 0.01] and lower mortality [OR 2.40; 95% CI (1.24-4.64); P = 0.009] than LBS. Length of hospital stay [WMD = - 0.02; 95% CI (- 0.19-0.15); P = 0.819], reoperation within 30 days [OR 1.36; 95% CI (0.65-2.82); P = 0.411], overall complications [OR 0.88; 95% CI (0.68-1.15); P = 0.362], leak [OR 1.04; 95% CI (0.43-2.51); P = 0.933], stricture [OR 1.05; 95% CI (0.52-2.12); P = 0.895], pulmonary embolisms [OR 1.97; 95% CI (0.93-4.17); P = 0.075], estimated blood loss[WMD = - 1.93; 95% CI (- 4.61-0.75); P = 0.158] were almost similar in both RBS group and LBS group. Three was no statistically significant difference between RRYGB and LRYGB in EWL%, no statistical significance between RSG and LSG after 1 year, 2 years and 3 years.

CONCLUSION

RBS presented lower mortality within 90 days and longer operative time in this meta-analysis with similar safety and efficacy for the obesity compared with LBS in other outcomes. Additionally, RBS might be beneficial in the future if it would be evaluated in comprehensive and long-term endpoints.

The Impact of Robotics in Learning Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: a Retrospective Analysis of 214 Laparoscopic and Robotic Procedures : Robotic Vs. Laparoscopic RYGB

BACKGROUND

Proximal Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is commonly used to manage obesity, performed using laparoscopic or robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery. As the prevalence of robotic bariatric surgery increases, further data is required to justify its use.

METHODS

This was a large, retrospective analysis of prospectively recorded data for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) procedures performed using laparoscopic (LRYGB) or robotic (RRYGB; da Vinci Xi system, Intuitive Surgical Sàrl) surgery between January 2016 and March 2019. The surgical techniques did not differ apart from different trocar placements. Data collected included patient characteristics before and after RYGB, operative outcomes and complications.

RESULTS

In total, 114 RRYGB and 108 LRYGB primary surgeries were performed. There were no significant differences between the groups, apart from a significantly shorter duration of surgery (116.9 vs. 128.9 min, respectively), lower C-reactive protein values at days 1 (31.1 vs. 44.1 mg/l) and 2 (50.3 vs. 77.8 mg/l) after the intervention, and overall complication rate (4.4 vs. 12.0%, Clavien-Dindo classification II-V) with RRYGB compared with LRYGB. There was a lower hemoglobin value in the postoperative course after RRYGB (12.1 vs. 12.6 g/dl, day 2).

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, robotic RYGB has proven to be safe and efficient, with a shorter duration of surgery and lower rate of complications than laparoscopic RYGB. RRYGB is easier to learn and seems safer in less experienced centers. Increasing experience with the robotic system can reduce the duration of surgery over time. Further studies with higher evidence level are necessary to confirm our results.

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.

Comparative analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in severely obese patients

Benefits of robotic surgery for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) are still debated. We aimed to compare conventional laparoscopic (L-RYGB) to robotic RYGB (R-RYGB) and evaluate safety, efficacy, advantages and drawbacks of each procedure. A prospective cohort study with a retrospective review approach was conducted to analyze results of L-RYGB and R-RYGB performed at a bariatric center of excellence. Patient demographics, perioperative data, weight loss, comorbidities evolution and cost were assessed. One hundred and sixty-one severely obese patients underwent R-RYGB and L-RYGB, respectively. Patient's characteristics were similar between groups. Intraoperative blood loss was similar (p = 0.91), with no requirement for blood transfusion. Median operative time was significantly reduced for R-RYGB (127 vs 160 min; p < 0.001). Seven patients (11.4%) in the L-RYGB group and 15 patients (15%) in the R-RYGB group had early postoperative complications (p = 0.63), with more anastomotic leaks and stenosis for R-RYGB during initial learning curve (p = NS). Mortality was null. Median length of hospital stay was similar (6 days; p = 0.20). Mean hospital cost was non-significantly increased for R-RYGB ($5730 vs. $4879; p = 0.34). Two years after surgery, median BMI and mean EWL% were similar for both groups (26.1 vs 26.5 kg/m² and 89.9% vs 90.9% for L-RYGB and R-RYGB groups, respectively; p = 0.71 and 0.85, respectively), with no statistically significant difference in comorbidities between the two groups (p = 0.80). R-RYGB is feasible and safe within the reach of every laparoscopic surgeon. In our series, it was associated with shorter operative time and equivalent length of stay and weight loss outcomes compared to L-RYGB. Further well-designed randomized studies are necessary to draw safe conclusions.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Feasibility and safety of robot-assisted bariatric conversions and revisions

BACKGROUND

Conversions and revisions after bariatric procedures are inevitable and associated with longer operative time and higher complication rates. Because robot-assisted procedures allow better dissection, robotic conversions and revisions may be more beneficial to the patients than laparoscopic ones.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the feasibility and safety of robot-assisted conversions and revisions to laparoscopic procedures.

SETTING

Academic Hospital, United States.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed on 94 consecutive patients who underwent a bariatric conversion or revision (revision of gastrojejunostomy, conversions of vertical sleeve gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, adjustable gastric banding to sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass to sleeve gastrectomy, adjustable gastric banding to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass to duodenal switch, and adjustable gastric banding to duodenal switch) between January 1, 2017, and February 28, 2019. Of these, 30 underwent a robot-assisted conversion or revision.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent a robot-assisted approach were more likely to be older (45.4-versus 38.8-yr old) and lighter (44.6 versus 50.3 kg/m²) than patients who underwent a laparoscopic approach. The mean operative time was longer in the robot-assisted group (155.5 min) than in the laparoscopic group (113.3 min). No difference was observed between the 2 groups in the mean length of hospital stay, 30-day readmission rate, or 30-day reoperation rate. Results were similar when the baseline difference in age and body mass index were accounted for.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted conversions and revisions were as feasible and safe as laparoscopic procedures. However, operative time was longer in robot-assisted conversions.

Does Robotic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Provide Outcome Advantages over Standard Laparoscopic Approaches?

Objective

The aim was to compare clinical outcomes of patients treated with totally robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (TRRYGB) with those treated with the different laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) techniques.

Summary Background Data

The clinical benefit of the robotic approach to bariatric surgery compared to the standard laparoscopic approach is unclear. There are no studies directly comparing outcomes of TRRYGB with different LRYGB techniques.

Methods

Outcomes of 578 obese patients who underwent RYGB between 2011 and 2014 at an academic center were assessed. Multivariable analysis and propensity matching were used for comparing TRRYGB to different LRYGB techniques, including 21-mm EEA circular-stapled gastrojejunal anastomosis (GJA, LRYGB-21CS), linear-stapled GJA (LRYGB-LS), and hand-sewn GJA (LRYGB-HS).

Results

The TRRYGB technique required a longer mean operative time compared to the other groups, respectively 204 ± 46 vs. 139 ± 30 min (LRYGB-21CS), 206 ± 37 vs. 158 ± 30 min (LRYGB-LS), and 210 ± 36 vs. 167 ± 30 min (LRYGB-HS). TRRYGB experienced a lower stricture rate (2 vs. 17%, P = 0.003), shorter hospital stay (2.6 ± 1.2 vs. 4.3 ± 5.5 days, P = 0.008), and lower readmission rate (12 vs. 28%, P = 0.009). No significant differences in outcomes were observed when comparing RRYGB to LRYGB-LS or LRYGB-HS.

Conclusions

TRRYGB increases operative time compared to all LRYGB techniques. TRRYGB was superior to LRYGB-21CS in terms of significantly shorter hospital stay, lower readmission rate, and less frequent GJA stricture formation. TRRYGB provides no clinical advantages over the LRYGB-LS and LRYGB-HS techniques.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s11695-018-3228-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Robotic Revisional Bariatric Surgery in a Complex Patient Population

BACKGROUND

Utilization of the robotic platform has become more common in bariatric applications. We aim to show that robotic revisional bariatric surgery (RRBS) can be safely performed in a complex patient population with perioperative outcomes equivalent to laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery (LRBS).

METHODS

Retrospective review was conducted of adult patients undergoing laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery (LRBS) or robotic revisional bariatric surgery (RRBS) at our institution from September 2007 to December 2016. Patients undergoing planned two-stage bariatric procedures were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 84 patients who underwent LRBS (n = 66) or RRBS (n = 18) were included. The index operation was adjustable gastric banding (AGB) in 39/84 (46%), sleeve gastrectomy (VSG) in 23/84 (27%), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) in 13/84 (16%), and vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) in 9/84 (11%). For patients undergoing conversion from AGB (n = 39), there was no difference in operative time, length of stay, or complications by surgical approach. For patients undergoing conversion from a stapled procedure (n = 45), the robotic approach was associated with a shorter length of stay (5.8 ± 3.3 vs 3.7 ± 1.7 days, p = 0.04) with equivalent operative time and post-operative complications. There were three leaks in the LRBS group and none in the RRBS group (p = 0.36). Major complications occurred in 3/39 (8%) of patients undergoing conversion from AGB and 2/45 (4%) of patients undergoing conversion from a stapled procedure (p = 0.53) with no difference by surgical approach.

CONCLUSIONS

RRBS is associated with a shorter length of stay than LRBS in complex procedures and has at least an equivalent safety profile. Long-term follow-up data is needed.

Value of robotic-assisted technique in redo gastrojejunostomy for severe stenosis after gastric bypass

Development of gastrojejunal stricture following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) leads to an increase in morbidity and adverse effects, such as abdominal pain, vomiting, aspiration pneumonia, and malnutrition. Up to 38.5% of patients will require revisional surgery for late anastomotic strictures despite conservative treatment. However, no previous studies focused on revisional robotic bariatric surgery due to strictures after RYGB have been reported. To evaluate our outcomes and assess the advantages of the robotic platform with regard to laparoscopic and open revisional procedures. University Hospital. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent laparoscopic robotic-assisted redo gastrojejunostomy from 2016 to 2018. Demographics, surgical data, medical treatments, postoperative outcomes, and adverse effects were collected. Nine patients with symptomatic anastomotic strictures after primary RYGB underwent robotic revisional surgery. All patients received medical therapy as a first approach, and five patients (55.5%) underwent endoscopic balloon dilation. All procedures were successfully completed with robotic assistance, with a mean (standard deviation) operative time of 184.5 (49.1) min, and no intraoperative adverse effects were registered. Median (range) hospital stay was 2 (1-4) days. One patient presented with a postoperative intra-abdominal abscess and was treated with intravenous antibiotics and image-guided drainage. No anastomotic leak, hemorrhage, or mortality were reported. Robotic assistance seems to be safe and effective for redo gastrojejunostomy secondary to stricture. Even though the sample size is small, we believe that the application of robotic techniques may provide advantages and improve the outcomes in these complex revisional procedures.

Use of barbed sutures in robotic bariatric bypass surgery: a single-center case series

BACKGROUND

Surgical robots are increasingly being used in bariatric surgery. While several studies describe the safety of using barbed sutures in laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery, no reports are available for robotic bariatric procedures. The aim of our article is to determine whether barbed sutures can be used safely in robotic Roux-en-Y bypass (RYGB) surgery.

METHODS

This was a single-center, single-surgeon case series of RYGB procedures using the da Vinci® Xi Surgical System (Intuitive Surgery, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) in combination with the use of barbed sutures (Stratafix, Ethicon, Johnson & Johnson, Cincinnati, OH, USA).

RESULTS

Fifty robotic proximal and distal RYGB surgeries were performed. A linear stapled, side-to-side gastrojejunostomy was carried out, whereby the enterotomy was completed with a running resorbable unidirectional barbed suture, Stratafix 2-0. In one case after robotic proximal RYGB, revision surgery was required due to omentum necrosis. Another patient was readmitted due to gastrointestinal bleeding from anastomosis. No anastomotic insufficiencies, no stenoses, or higher-grade complications according to Clavien-Dindo 4a-5 were found.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that the use of self-fixing barbed sutures in robotic RYGB is safe. The self-fixing suture enables the robotic surgeon to perform a simple continuous suture without the need for recurrent retraction. Although we are the first to report this procedure, we had a low number of cases and no control group; thus, further studies with a higher level of evidence are required.

[Robot-assisted vs laparoscopic gastric bypass : First experiences with the DaVinci system in bariatric surgery]

Conventional laparoscopy is the gold standard in bariatric surgery. Internationally, robot-assisted surgery is gaining in importance. Up to now there are only few reports from Germany on the use of the system in bariatric surgery. Since January 2017 we have been performing robot-assisted gastric bypass surgery. It remains unclear whether the use of the robotic system has advantages over the well-established laparoscopic technique. Within a period from January to early August 2017 a total of 53 gastric bypass operations were performed. Of these 16 proximal redo Roux-en-Y gastric bypass operations were performed with the DaVinci Si system versus 29 laparoscopic procedures. A retrospective analysis of the perioperative course was carried out. Body weight, body mass index (BMI), Edmonton obesity staging system (EOSS) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification did not show significant differences. There were also no significant differences in terms of estimated blood loss, intraoperative complications, duration of surgery, postoperative inflammatory parameters and weight loss. There was no mortality and no need for revisional surgery in either group. After laparoscopic surgery there was a delayed occurrence of a leak of the gastrojejunostomy followed by readmission and endoscopic negative pressure wound therapy. The results show that the proximal Roux-en-Y gastric bypass can be performed safely and efficiently using the DaVinci surgical system. Significant differences to the conventional laparoscopic procedure were not found. Larger randomized controlled trials are needed to define the role of the DaVinci system in bariatric surgery.

Robotic skills can be aided by laparoscopic training

BACKGROUND

General Surgery is currently the fastest growing specialty with regards to robotic surgical system utilization. Contrary to the experience in laparoscopy, simulator training for robotic surgery is not widely employed partly because robotic surgical simulators are expensive. We sought to determine the effect of a robotic simulation curriculum and whether robotic surgical skills could be derived from those psychomotor skills attained in laparoscopic training.

METHODS

Twenty-seven trainees with no prior robotic experience and limited laparoscopy exposure were randomly assigned to one of three training groups: no simulator training, training on a fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS™) standard box trainer, and training on a robotic computer based simulator (da Vinci Skills Simulator™). Baseline robotic surgical skills were assessed on the clinical robot docked to a standard FLS trainer box on two tasks-intracorporeal knot tying and peg transfer. Subjects subsequently underwent four 1-h long training sessions in their assigned training environment over a course of several weeks. Robotic surgical skills were reassessed on the robot on the same two tasks used to assess skills prior to training.

RESULTS

FLS training resulted in a greater score improvement than no training for both knot and peg scores. FLS training was also determined to result in greater score improvement than robotic simulator training for knot tying. There was no significant difference in peg transfer or knot tying scores when comparing robotic simulator training and no training.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgical skills can be in part derived from psychomotor skills developed in a laparoscopic trainer, especially for complex skills such as intracorporeal knot tying. Acquisition of robotic surgical skills may be enhanced by practice on a laparoscopic simulator using the FLS curriculum. This may be especially helpful when a robotic simulator is not available or is poorly accessible.

Robotic platform for gastric bypass is associated with more resource utilization: an analysis of MBSAQIP dataset

BACKGROUND

The current literature comparing robot-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RA-RYGB) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) is limited to single center retrospective series.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to compare perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent RA-RYGB with those who underwent LRYGB.

SETTING

National database.

METHODS

Data on patients who underwent RA-RYGB and LRYGB were extracted from the 2015 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program participant use file. A 1:8 propensity score matching (RA-RYGB:LRYGB) was performed, and the 30-day outcomes of the propensity-matched cohorts were compared.

RESULTS

In total, 36,158 patients met inclusion criteria, including 2660 RA-RYGB (7.4%) cases, which were propensity matched (1:8) with 21,280 LRYGB cases having similar preoperative characteristics. RA-RYGB was associated with longer median operative time (136 versus 107 min; P<.001) and a higher 30-day readmission rate (7.3% versus 6.2%; P = .03). There were no statistical differences between the RA-RYGB and LRYGB cohorts with respect to all-cause morbidity (10.6% versus 10.7%; P = .8), serious morbidity (1.2% versus 1.7%; P = .07), mortality (0.1% versus .2%; P = .2), unplanned intensive care unit admission (1.1% versus 1.3%; P = .3), reoperation (2.4% versus 2.4%; P = .97), or reintervention (3.0% versus 2.5%; P = .2) within 30 days after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Based on available national data, RA-RYGB appears safe compared with a conventional laparoscopic approach for gastric bypass. However, RA-RYGB was associated with longer operative time and higher readmission rate, indicating greater resource use. Further studies are needed to better delineate the role of robotic platforms in bariatric surgery.

Robotic versus laparoscopic stapling during robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery: a case-matched analysis of costs and clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this analysis is to compare the robotic EndoWrist Stapling System (EWSS) 45 mm (Intuitive Surgical Inc. Sunnyvale, CA, USA) and the ECHELON FLEX^™ ENDOPATH^® Staplers (EFES) 60 mm (Ethicon, Cincinnati, OH, USA) for gastric pouch formation during robotic gastric bypass surgery.

METHODS

Patients who underwent robotic gastric bypass surgery with stapling using EWSS were matched with patients who underwent the same procedure with the EFES. Demographic, intra- and postoperative, and cost data were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 49 patients were identified who had undergone robotic gastric bypass surgery using EWSS. They were matched with 49 patients who underwent the equivalent procedure using EFES. With similar demographic parameters, corrected operating room time without cholecystectomy took longer for the patients that underwent surgery with EWSS (+22 min, p = 0.1042). Stapler clamping was unsuccessful in 19.0% of all recorded attempts with EWSS. Two intra-operative complications unrelated to stapling and one complication due to stapling were observed in the EWSS cohort, while none was observed for the EFES group. Significantly, more recharges were needed with EWSS to complete the gastric pouch (4.9 vs. 4.1, p = 0.0048) and overall stapling costs for the procedure were significantly higher (2212.2 vs. 1787.4 USD, p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Gastric pouch formation using EWSS during robotic gastric bypass surgery is feasible. Due to the shorter length of EWSS compared to EFES, more stapling recharges are required to complete gastric pouch formation and the stapling costs for gastric bypass surgery are higher. Further systematic research should be conducted to precisely determine the value of the robotic EWSS for gastric bypass surgery.

Perioperative safety of laparoscopic versus robotic gastric bypass: a propensity matched analysis of early experience

BACKGROUND

The role of robotic assistance for gastric bypass remains controversial. Using a large nationwide cohort, we compared early outcomes after robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (Robot-RYGB) with the laparoscopic technique (LRYGB).

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to use a bariatric-specific, large, nationwide cohort with several years of data to compare the early postoperative outcomes of the Robot-RYGB and LRYGB.

SETTING

Nationwide register-based cohort study.

METHODS

The Bariatric Outcomes Longitudinal Database from 2007 to 2012 was used to identify patients who underwent nonrevisional Robot-RYGB or LRYGB. Propensity matching was used to account for differences in age, body mass index, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, multiple preoperative co-morbidities, and procedural year. A second propensity score was calculated with adjustment of operative time in addition to the other adjusted variables.

RESULTS

We identified 137,455 patients who underwent Robot-RYGB (n = 2415) or LRYGB (n = 135,040) with a mean body mass index of 47.1 ± 8.4 kg/m² and age of 45.4 ± 11.7 years. In the propensity-matched cohorts, there were 30-day differences in operative time (150.2 ± 72.5 versus 111.8 ± 47.6, P<.001); 30-day rates of reoperation (4.8% versus 3.1%, P = .002); 90-day rates of reoperation (8.8% versus 5.3%, P<.001), complication (15.8% versus 12.5%, P = .001), readmission (8.5% versus 6.4%, P = .005), stricture (3.5% versus 2.0%, P = .001), ulceration (1.2% versus .6%, P = .034), nausea or emesis (6.4% versus 4.36%, P = .001), and anastomotic leak (1.6% versus .2%, P<.001) when comparing Robot-RYGB with LRYGB. After including operative time in propensity matching, there were no significant differences in rates of 30-day readmission or ulceration or 90-day readmission or ulceration; all other differences remained significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite controlling for patient characteristics, patients undergoing Robot-RYGB developed higher rates of early morbidity compared with LRYGB, suggesting LRYGB may provide improved postoperative outcomes. Further studies are needed to definitively compare these 2 operative approaches.

Emerging Trends in the Etiology, Prevention, and Treatment of Gastrointestinal Anastomotic Leakage

Anastomotic leaks represent one of the most alarming complications following any gastrointestinal anastomosis due to the substantial effects on post-operative morbidity and mortality of the patient with long-lasting effects on the functional and oncologic outcomes. There is a lack of consensus related to the definition of an anastomotic leak, with a variety of options for prevention and management. A number of patient-related and technical risk factors have been found to be associated with the development of an anastomotic leak and have inspired the development of various preventative measures and technologies. The International Multispecialty Anastomotic Leak Global Improvement Exchange group was convened to establish a consensus on the definition of an anastomotic leak as well as to discuss the various diagnostic, preventative, and management measures currently available.