Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy in Adolescents; Reality or Hype

Comparing the Efficacy of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has emerged as the predominant metabolic bariatric surgery. With a growing number of studies evaluating the feasibility of robotic sleeve gastrectomy (RSG), it becomes imperative to ascertain whether the outcomes of both techniques are comparable. This study endeavors to synthesize existing evidence and juxtapose the surgical outcomes of LSG and RSG.

METHODS

We collected articles comparing LSG and RSG published between 2011 and 2024. The compiled data included author names, study duration, sample size, average age, gender distribution, geographical location, preoperative body mass index (BMI), bougie diameter, duration of hospitalization, surgical duration, readmission rates, conversion rates, costs, postoperative percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL), postoperative BMI, mortality rates, and complications.

RESULTS

We incorporated 21 articles. Both the RSG and LSG cohorts exhibited comparable rates of readmission, conversion, mortality, and incidence of complications (p > 0.05). Moreover, the efficacy of weight loss was similar between RSG and LSG. Nonetheless, RSG was linked to longer operative duration (WMD, -27.50 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI], -28.82 to -26.18; p < 0.0001), prolonged hospitalization (WMD, -0.15 days; 95% CI, -0.25 to -0.04; p = 0.006), and elevated expenses (WMD, -5830.9 dollars; 95% CI, -8075.98 to -3585.81; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

While both RSG and LSG demonstrated positive postoperative clinical outcomes, RSG patients experienced extended hospital stays, longer operative times, and increased hospitalization costs compared to LSG patients. Using the robotic platform for sleeve gastrectomy (SG) in patients with obesity did not appear to offer any clear benefits.

Pain Assessment and Analgesic Requirements after Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Comparison Study of Robotic versus Laparoscopic Approaches

Background: Sleeve gastrectomy is the most common bariatric procedure worldwide, yet postoperative pain management remains a concern. This study aimed to compare pain medication usage and pain scores between laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and robotic sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) patients, addressing the potential benefits of RSG in postoperative pain control. Methods: A retrospective review of our institutional bariatric surgery registry included 484 patients (435 LSG, 49 RSG) who underwent surgery between September 2015 and November 2020. Pain management medications, including opioid use converted to morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs), and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) scores were analyzed postoperatively using mixed-effects models. Results: RSG patients reported lower pain scores in the initial 24 h post-surgery and received significantly lower doses of morphine equivalents compared to LSG patients (median 7.5 mg vs. 12.5 mg, p < 0.001). RSG procedures had longer operative times (122.5 ± 27.1 vs. 89.9 ± 30.5 min, p < 0.001) but a shorter average length of stay (2.24 ± 0.60 vs. 2.65 ± 1.49 days) compared to LSG. Conclusions: These findings suggest that RSG may lead to reduced immediate postoperative pain and lower opioid requirements compared to the laparoscopic approach, despite longer operative times. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these observations and evaluate long-term outcomes.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Outcome Trends Over Time: Are We Improving?

BACKGROUND

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is an effective treatment option for patients with obesity. Robotic sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) is reported to have worse short-term patient outcomes compared to laparoscopic SG (LSG), but prior studies may not have accounted for evolving technology, including stapler utilization.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared RSG and LSG outcomes over different time periods.

SETTING

Academic Hospital.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The 2015 to 2021 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Project (MBSAQIP) databases were used. Matched cohort analyses compared adverse outcomes within 30 days for the 2015-2018 and 2019-2021 cohorts. Bivariate and regression models compared cohorts using Stata/MP 17.0.

RESULTS

Seven hundred sixty-eight thousand and sixty-nine SG were analyzed. Over the 7-year study period, all patient outcomes, operation length (OL), and length of stay (LOS) trended downward for RSG, except surgical site infection (SSI). In the 2015-2018 cohort, leak was significantly higher with RSG (OR 1.53), and OL and LOS longer (p < 0.001). In the 2019-2021 cohort which corelated with a significant increase in robotic cases, leak (OR 1.36), SSI (OR 1.46), and morbidity (OR 1.11) were higher with RSG. While the mean difference in OL and LOS decreased between the two time periods, they remain longer for RSG (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

While RSG and LSG are safe with similar mortality, RSG continues to be associated with higher rates of morbidity, leak, and SSI, as well as longer OL, hospital LOS, and higher cost. The study is limited by the ability to account for the impact of surgeon experience and stapler utilization on outcomes.

Robotic-Assisted Surgery in Patients Less than 15 kg: A Single Center Review

Introduction: Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is an increasingly utilized tool in children. However, utilization of RAS among infants and small children has not been well established. The purpose of this study was to review and characterize RAS procedures for children ≤15 kg. Methods: We performed a single institution retrospective descriptive analysis including all patients ≤15 kg undergoing RAS between January 2013 and July 2021. Data collection included procedure type, age, weight, gender, and surgical complications. Cases were further categorized according to surgical specialty: pediatric urology (PU), pediatric surgery (PS), and multiple specialties (MS). t-Tests were used for statistical analyses. Results: Since 2013, a total of 976 RAS were identified: 492 (50.4%) were performed by PU, 466 (47.8%) by PS, and 18 (1.8%) by MS. One hundred eighteen (12.1%) were performed on children ≤15 kg, consisting of 110 (93.2%) PU cases, 6 (5.1%) PS cases, and 2 (1.7%) MS cases. Procedures were significantly more common in the PU subgroup, mean of 12 cases/year, compared to PS subgroup, mean of 0.63 cases/year, (P < .01). The mean weight of PU patients (10.5 kg) was significantly less than PS patients (13.9 kg) (P < .01). Mean age was also significantly lower among PU patients (18.6 months) compared to PS (34.2 months) (P < .01). Conclusion: RAS among patients ≤15 kg is safe and feasible across pediatric surgical subspecialties. RAS was performed significantly more frequently by pediatric urologists in younger and smaller patients compared to pediatric surgeons. Further refinement of robotic technology and instrumentation should enhance the applicability of these procedures in this young group.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic splenectomy in children: a costeffectiveness study

Laparoscopic elective splenectomy is considered as a safe surgical treatment of spleen non-traumatic blood disorders. However, robotic assisted splenectomy is becoming a promising alternative, although there are scarce studies in pediatric patients. Our aim is to compare the effectiveness and associated costs of both procedures in children. A single-institution retrospective study was performed among consecutive children undergoing splenectomy between 2004 and 2021, who were divided according to the surgical approach: LAS group (laparoscopic splenectomy) and RAS group (robotic assisted splenectomy). Demographics, clinical features, intraoperative blood loss, surgery time, length of hospital stay (LOS), postoperative complications, need for postoperative blood transfusion, readmission rate and economic data were compared. A total of 84 patients were included (23 LAS group; 61 RAS group), without demographic or clinical differences between them. RAS patients presented lower intraoperative blood loss (42 ± 15 vs. 158 ± 39 ml; p < 0.021) and shorter surgery time (135 ± 39 vs. 182 ± 68 min; p = 0.043), with no differences in median LOS (3 days in both groups). No intraoperative complications or conversion was reported. Five postoperative complications were observed: 4 in LAS patients (17.4%) versus only one in RAS (1.6%; p = 0.021). One reintervention was required in LAS group due to hemoperitoneum 12 h after splenectomy. RAS patients had lower postoperative blood transfusion requirements (1.6% vs. 13.0%; p = 0.025) and lower readmission rate (3.3 vs. 17.4%; p = 0.042). No differences were observed when comparing the median economic costs ($25,645 LAS vs. $28,135 RAS; p = 0.215). Robotic assisted splenectomy may be considered as a safe and feasible option in children compared to the traditional laparoscopic approach. Level of evidence: III.

Selection of Robotic Bariatric Surgery Candidates: a Nationwide Analysis

INTRODUCTION

This study aims to identify risk factors associated with 30-day major complications, readmission, and delayed discharge for patients undergoing robotic bariatric surgery.

METHODS

From the metabolic and bariatric surgery and accreditation quality improvement program (2015-2018) datasets, adult patients who underwent elective robotic bariatric operations were included. Predictors for 30-day major complications, readmission, and delayed discharge (hospital stay ≥ 3 days) were identified using univariable and multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

Major complications in patients undergoing robotic bariatric surgery were associated with both pre-operative and intraoperative factors including pre-existing cardiac morbidity (OR = 1.41, CI = [1.09-1.82]), gastroesophageal reflux disease [GERD] (OR = 1.23, CI = [1.11-1.38]), pulmonary embolism (OR = 1.51, CI = [1.02-2.22]), prior bariatric surgery (OR = 1.66, CI = [1.43-1.94]), increased operating time (OR = 1.003, CI = [1.002-1.004]), gastric bypass or duodenal switch (OR = 1.58, CI = [1.40-1.79]), and intraoperative drain placement (OR = 1.28, CI = [1.11-1.47]). With regard to 30-day readmission, non-white race (OR = 1.25, CI = [1.14-1.39]), preoperative hyperlipidemia (OR = 1.16, CI = [1.14-1.38]), DVT (OR = 1.48, CI = [1.10-1.99]), therapeutic anticoagulation (OR = 1.48, CI = [1.16-1.89]), limited ambulation (OR = 1.33, CI = [1.01-1.74]), and dialysis (OR = 2.14, CI = [1.13-4.09]) were significantly associated factors. Age ≥ 65 (OR = 1.18, CI = [1.04-1.34]), female gender (OR = 1.21, CI = [1.10-1.32]), hypertension (OR = 1.08, CI = [1.01-1.15]), renal insufficiency (OR = 2.32, CI = [1.69-3.17]), COPD (OR = 1.49, CI = [1.23-1.82]), sleep apnea (OR = 1.10, CI = [1.03-1.18]), oxygen dependence (OR = 1.47, CI = [1.10-2.0]), steroid use (OR = 1.26, CI = [1.02-1.55]), IVC filter (OR = 1.52, CI = [1.15-2.0]), and BMI ≥ 40 (OR = 1.12, CI = [1.04-1.21]) were risk factors associated with delayed discharge.

CONCLUSION

When selecting patients for bariatric surgery, surgeons early in their learning curve for utilizing robotics should avoid individuals with pre-existing cardiac or renal morbidities, venous thromboembolism, and limited functional status. Patients who have had previous bariatric surgery or require technically demanding operations are at higher risk for complications. An evidence-based approach in selecting bariatric candidates may potentially minimize the overall costs associated with adopting the technology.

Scarless laparoscopic incisions in Pfannenstiel (slip): the first 50 cases using an innovative approach in pediatric robotic surgery

Incisions in the supra-pubic region have been described robotic-assisted surgery to improve cosmetic results in adults, but seldom in children. We aimed to present an innovative trocar placement in the Pfannenstiel line, named Scarless Laparoscopic Incisions in Pfannenstiel (SLIP), and evaluate its feasibility for various intra-abdominal procedures and its cosmetic results in pediatric robotic surgery. We performed a monocentric prospective study, including children undergoing robotic-assisted surgeries using a SLIP approach (July 2019-September 2021). Data regarding demographics, surgery, and outcome were collected and reported as median (range), or number (percentage). Cosmetic results were evaluated with a questionnaire. A SLIP approach was performed in 50 children (24 cholecystectomies, 12 splenectomies, 2 cholecystectomies and splenectomies, 9 colonic resections, 2 choledochal cyst resections, and 1 pancreatic pseudocyst resection). Median age was 11 years (2-18) and median weight 35 kg (10.5-80). Conversion to laparoscopy occurred in two cases. Post-operative complications occurred in 5 patients (10%), after colectomies [intrabdominal abscess (n = 3), stoma dysfunction (n = 1), parietal abscess (n = 1)], of which 3 (6%) required reintervention (intrabdominal abscess n = 2, stoma dysfunction n = 1). Regarding scars, 68% (n = 28) of parents and patients reported the maximal score of 5/5 for global satisfaction and 63% (n = 26) had all scars hidden by underwear. SLIP approach is versatile and can be used in supra- and infra-mesocolic robotic-assisted procedures. The low complication rate shows its safety in both young children and teenagers and does not increase operative difficulties. It results in high patient satisfaction regarding scars, and a scarless abdomen.

Robotic-assisted vertical sleeve gastrectomy in adolescents: Do BMI limits apply?

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG) in adolescent patients has been shown to have comparable outcomes to laparoscopic VSG. Recent data suggests that metabolic and bariatric surgery (performed using robotic and laparoscopic techniques) in patients with BMI ≥ 50 kg/m² have a higher risk of adverse events compared to those with BMI < 50 kg/m². The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of robotic-assisted VSG in adolescents with a BMI above and below 50 kg/m².

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all adolescents undergoing robotic-assisted VSG between January 2014 and December 2020. Subjects were categorized based on preoperative BMI; Group 1 (BMI < 50 kg/m²) or Group 2 (BMI ≥ 50 kg/m²). Data collection included patient demographics, preoperative BMI, total operative time, access time (i.e., total time for port-placement), 30 day complications, and 30 day hospital readmissions. Analysis was performed using chi-square, Fisher's Exact, and student t-test.

RESULTS

Total of 115 subjects (Group 1 N = 64 and Group 2 N = 51) were included. No differences in age or ethnicity were detected; however, Group 2 had a higher percentage of male patients (27.5% vs. 4.7%, respectively, p = 0.001). Mean operative times (Group 1 = 122.2 min vs. Group 2 = 121.6 min) and access times (Group 1 = 19.1 min vs. Group 2 = 19.7 min) were similar between groups. Thirty day complication rates were similar between groups (p = 0.133); however, there was a higher rate of hospital readmission in Group 1.

CONCLUSION

While recent data demonstrate an increased likelihood of adverse events occurring among patients with BMI ≥ 50 kg/m² undergoing robotic surgery, we observed no differences in intraoperative or early postoperative outcomes based on BMI in this robotic-assisted pediatric cohort.

Comparative analysis of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in pediatric patients

BACKGROUND

Despite increased utilization of robotic-assisted surgery in the pediatric population during the past decade, reports of comparative analysis between robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery are lacking. Our aim was to evaluate outcomes between pediatric robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RC) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

METHODS

A single institution retrospective analysis of 299 patients undergoing either RC or LC, between January 2015 and December 2018 was performed. Demographic data as well as clinical characteristics and related outcomes were abstracted and compared using univariate analysis. Related hospital costs were estimated using a charge to cost methodology.

RESULTS

The median age of the cohort was 15.5 years (IQR 14.0-17.0); 76% females and 70% white, with 74% (n = 220) undergoing LC and 26% (n = 79) undergoing RC. The majority of RC were performed using single-site technique and RC proportion increased with time (10% in 2015 vs. 41% in 2018, p<0.001). The majority of RC were more commonly attributed to patients with nonacute indications for cholecystectomy compared to acute clinical indications (87% vs. 13%). Median operative time was 98 min vs. 79 min for RC and LC respectively (p<0.001). Median postoperative LOS was similar between groups (22 h). There were no significant differences in postoperative complication, in-hospital opioid utilization and 30-day readmissions. Average total hospital costs for RC were $15,519 compared to $11,197 for LC.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is feasible with similar outcomes compared to laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, it is associated with longer operative times and higher costs. The single-site RC technique may provide a potential cosmetic benefit.

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.

Bariatric Surgery in Adolescents: To Do or Not to Do?

Pediatric obesity is a multifaceted disease that can impact physical and mental health. It is a complex condition that interweaves biological, developmental, environmental, behavioral, and genetic factors. In most cases lifestyle and behavioral modification as well as medical treatment led to poor short-term weight reduction and long-term failure. Thus, bariatric surgery should be considered in adolescents with moderate to severe obesity who have previously participated in lifestyle interventions with unsuccessful outcomes. In particular, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is considered the most commonly performed bariatric surgery worldwide. The procedure is safe and feasible. The efficacy of this weight loss surgical procedure has been demonstrated in pediatric age. Nevertheless, there are barriers at the patient, provider, and health system levels, to be removed. First and foremost, more efforts must be made to prevent decline in nutritional status that is frequent after bariatric surgery, and to avoid inadequate weight loss and weight regain, ensuring successful long-term treatment and allowing healthy growth. In this narrative review, we considered the rationale behind surgical treatment options, outcomes, and clinical indications in adolescents with severe obesity, focusing on LSG, nutritional management, and resolution of metabolic comorbidities.

A comparison of robotic-assisted splenectomy and laparoscopic splenectomy for children with hematologic disorders

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) is the standard of care for hematologic disorders requiring splenectomy. Less is known about the outcomes following robotic-assisted splenectomy (RS) for this indication. Our aim was to describe outcomes of RS to LS in pediatric patients with hematologic disorders in our institution.

METHODS

A single institution retrospective review was performed of pediatric patients undergoing LS vs. RS from 2014 to 2019. Patient demographics, diagnosis, spleen size, hospital length of stay (LOS), operative time, post-operative opioid use, and hospital charges were evaluated. Standard univariate analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients were included in the study (14 LS, 10 RS). The mean spleen size at the time of surgery was larger in the RS group compared to LS (14.5 cm vs. 12.2 cm, p = 0.03). Operative time between the two cohorts was comparable (RS 140.5 vs LS 154.9 min). Median LOS for RS was shorter than LS (2.1 vs. 3.2 days, p = 0.02). Cumulative postoperative opioid analgesic requirements were not significantly different between the groups (17.4 mg vs. 30.5 mg). The median hospital charges, including the surgical procedure and hospital stay were higher in the RS group ($44,724 RS vs $30,255 LS, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Robotic splenectomy is a safe and feasible option for pediatric patients with hematologic disorders, and was associated with decreased LOS but higher charges compared to laparoscopic splenectomy. Further studies are required to delineate the optimal use and potential benefits of robot-assisted surgical techniques in children.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Splenectomy in Management of Non-traumatic Splenic Pathologies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

We aimed to evaluate comparative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic splenectomy in patients with non-traumatic splenic pathologies. A systematic search of electronic databases and bibliographic reference lists were conducted, and a combination of free text and controlled vocabulary search adapted to thesaurus headings, search operators and limits in electronic databases were applied. Intraoperative and post-operative complications, wound infection, haematoma, conversion to open procedure, return to theatre, volume of blood loss, procedure time and length of hospital stay were the evaluated outcome parameters. We identified 8 comparative studies reporting a total of 560 patients comparing outcomes of robotic (n = 202) and laparoscopic (n = 258) splenectomies. The robotic approach was associated with significantly lower volume of blood loss (MD: -82.53 mls, 95% CI -161.91 to -3.16, P = .04) than the laparoscopic approach. There was no significant difference in intraoperative complications (OR: 0.68, 95% CI .21-2.01, P = .51), post-operative complications (OR: .91, 95% CI .40-2.06, P = .82), wound infection (RD: -.01, 95% CI -.04-.03, P = .78), haematoma (OR: 0.40, 95% CI .04-4.03, P = .44), conversion to open (OR: 0.63; 95% CI, .24-1.70, P = .36), return to theatre (RD: -.04, 95% CI -.09-.02, P = .16), procedure time (MD: 3.63; 95% CI -16.99-24.25, P = .73) and length of hospital stay (MD: -.21; 95% CI -1.17 - .75, P = .67) between 2 groups. In conclusion, robotic and laparoscopic splenectomies seem to have comparable perioperative outcomes with similar rate of conversion to an open procedure, procedure time and length of hospital stay. The former may potentially reduce the volume of intraoperative blood loss. Future higher level research is required to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and clinical outcomes.

Global hospital and operative costs associated with various ventral cavity procedures: a comprehensive literature review and analysis across regions

Objectives: The aim of this literature review was to provide a comprehensive report on hospital costs, and cost components, for a range of ventral cavity surgical procedures across three regions of focus: (1) Americas, (2) Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA), and (3) Asia-Pacific. Methods: A structured search was performed and utilized a combination of controlled vocabulary (e.g., "Hepatectomy", "Colectomy", "Costs and Cost Analysis") and keywords (e.g. "liver resection", "bowel removal", "economics"). Studies were considered eligible for inclusion if they reported hospital-related costs associated with the procedures of interest. Cost outcomes included operating room (OR) time costs, total OR costs, ward stay costs, total admission costs, OR cost per minute and ward cost per day. All costs were converted to 2018 USD. Results: Total admission costs were observed to be highest in the Americas, with an average cost of $15,791. The average OR time cost per minute was found to vary by region: $24.83 (Americas), $14.29 (Asia-Pacific), and $13.90 (EMEA). A cost-breakdown demonstrated that OR costs typically comprised close to 50%, or more, of hospital admission costs. This review also demonstrates that decreasing OR time by 30 min provides cost savings approximately equivalent to a 1-day reduction in ward time. Conclusion: This literature review provided a comprehensive assessment of hospital costs across various surgical procedures, approaches, and geographical regions. Our findings indicate that novel processes and healthcare technologies that aim to reduce resources such as operating time and hospital stay, can potentially provide resource savings for hospital payers.

Robotic Surgery is More Expensive with Similar Outcomes in Sleeve Gastrectomy: Analysis of the NIS Database

The aim of this study was to compare postoperative outcomes after robotic-assisted and laparoscopic bariatric sleeve gastrectomy (SG). Sleeve gastrectomy is traditionally performed using laparoscopic techniques. Robotic-assisted surgery enables surgeons to perform minimally invasive SG, but with unknown benefits. Using a national database, we compared postoperative outcomes after laparoscopic SG and robotic-assisted SG. National data from individuals undergoing elective SG in the National Inpatient Sample database between 2011 and 2013 were analyzed. Propensity score matching was used to match robotic and laparoscopic groups by demographics, comorbidities, and hospital characteristics. The matching cohorts were compared. A total of 26,195 patients who underwent elective SG for morbid obesity were included. Of these, 25,391 (96.9%) were completed via laparoscopy, whereas 804 (3.1%) were performed with robotic assistance. There were no significant differences in demographics and subsequent postoperative complications. The inhospital mortality was similar. Length of hospital stay was statistically different, with a mean of 1.88 in laparoscopic versus 2.08 days in robotic (P < 0.001). Higher total hospital charges were noted in the robotic-assisted SG group (median US$38,569 vs US$54,658, P < 0.001). These differences were evident even after adjusting for confounding factors: wound infection, atelectasis, bowel obstruction, pneumonia, and bowel obstruction (P < 0.001).

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy for Morbid Obesity: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

We aim to review the available literature on obese patients treated with robotic or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, in order to compare the clinical outcomes and intraoperative parameters of the two methods. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library and EBSCOhost databases, in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria incorporating 29,787 patients. Robotic sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) technique showed significantly higher mean operative time and increased length of hospital stay. Post-operative incidence of leakage, wound infection and bleeding, along with weight reduction, were comparable. The majority of the studies assessing charges found increased cost in RSG population. Well-designed, randomized controlled studies, comparing RSG to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), are necessary to assess further their clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness.