Robotic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass as a Revisional Bariatric Procedure: a Single-Center Prospective Cohort Study

Comparison of short-term outcomes between robot-assisted and laparoscopic rectal surgery for rectal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis using the Japanese Nationwide diagnosis procedure combination database

Background

The use of robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer is increasing, but its short-term results remain unclear. We compared the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer using a nationwide inpatient database.

Methods

We analyzed patients registered in the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database who underwent robot-assisted or laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer from April 2018 to March 2020. Postoperative complication rates, anesthesia time, length of hospital stay, and cost were compared using propensity score matching for low anterior resection (LAR), high anterior resection (HAR), and abdominoperineal resection (APR).

Results

Among 38 090 rectal cancer cases, 1992 LAR, 357 HAR, and 310 APR pairs were generated by propensity score matching and analyzed. Anesthesia time was longer for robot-assisted surgery compared with laparoscopic surgery (LAR: 388.6 vs. 452.8 min, p < 0.001; HAR: 300.9 vs. 393.5 min, p < 0.001; APR: 4478.5 vs. 533.5 min, p < 0.001). Robot-assisted surgery was associated with significantly shorter hospital stay for LAR (22.3 vs. 20.0 days, p < 0.001) and APR (29.2 vs. 25.9 days, p = 0.029). Total costs for LAR were significantly lower for robot-assisted surgery (2031511.6 vs. 1955216.6 JPY, p < 0.001). The complication rates for robot-assisted surgery tended to be fewer than laparoscopic surgery for all procedures, but the differences were not significant.

Conclusions

Although the anesthesia time was longer for robot-assisted surgery, the procedure resulted in shorter hospital stay for LAR and APR, and lower costs for LAR compared with laparoscopic surgery. Robot-assisted surgery can thus help to reduce costs and can be performed safely.

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.

Controversial Role of Robot in Primary and Revisional Bariatric Surgery Procedures: Review of the Literature and Personal Experience

Laparoscopy is the surgical standard of care for bariatric procedures; however, during the last two decades, the robotic approach has gained increasing interest. It is currently considered a safe and effective alternative to laparoscopy. This literature review investigates the role of the robotic approach for primary and revisional bariatric procedures, with the particular aim of comparing this technique with the standard-of-care laparoscopic approach. The feasibility of robotic dissection and suturing could have potential advantages: robotics may prevent the risk of leak and bleeding and other surgical complications, determining potential benefits in terms of operative time, length of hospital stay, and learning curve. Considering primary procedures, the literature reveals no advantages in robotic versus the laparoscopic approach for adjustable gastric banding and sleeve gastrectomy. Robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is associated with a longer operative time and a shorter hospital length of stay than laparoscopy. The robotic approach in revisional surgery has been proven to be safe and effective. Despite the longer operative time, the robotic platform could achieve a lower bleeding rate compared with laparoscopy. The surgeon’s selection criteria related to referrals to the robotic approach of difficult-perceived cases could represent a bias. In conclusion, robotic surgery can be considered a safe and effective approach in both primary and revisional bariatric surgery, despite the lack of evidence to support its routine use in primary bariatric surgery. However, in revisional bariatric surgery and in surgical complex procedures, the robotic approach could have potential benefits in terms of surgical complications and learning curves.

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.

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.

Bariatric surgery in over 60 years old patients: is it worth it?

The high prevalence of obesity in the elderly and the increase in life expectancy pushed up the age limit as an indication to bariatric surgery. Nevertheless, results on safety and effectiveness of these procedures in over 60 years old population are still controversial. Objectives of the study were to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of bariatric surgery in the elderly. A prospectively collected database was queried for patients older than 60 years who underwent laparoscopic bariatric procedures between 2010 and 2017 at a single institution. These patients were matched with a group of younger patients who had the same procedure in the same period of time. Basal characteristic, intra- and post-operative data were compared. Patients were followed up at 36 months reporting the percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) and comorbidities remission rate. A total of 100 patients ≥ 60 years old were included (Group 1) and matched with a control group of 96 patients < 60 years (Group 2). Post-operative complications rate was similar (15.0% versus 10.4% p = 0.395). %EWL at 36 months was significantly higher in Group 2 (44.6% versus 68.2% p < 0.001), while remission of medical morbidities was similar in both groups, with a higher rate for type 2 diabetes (T2D) remission among older people (p = 0.017). Patients older than 60 years have post-operative outcomes comparable to younger population. Long-term results are inferior in terms of %EWL, but similar regarding morbidities remission rates, with particular benefits on T2D.

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 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.

Robotic "Double Loop" Roux-en-Y gastric bypass reduces the risk of postoperative internal hernias: a prospective observational study

Background

Internal herniation (IH) is a potentially serious complication after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). The aim of the study is to evaluate the incidence of IH after robot-assisted RYGB (RA-RYGB) performed with the “Double Loop” technique at our Institution.

Methods

Prospective cohort study of patients submitted to RA-RYGB with the “Double Loop” technique, with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Patients with complaints of abdominal pain at clinical visits or entering the emergency department were evaluated. Primary outcome was the incidence of IH, defined as the presence of herniated bowel through a mesenteric defect, diagnosed at imaging or at surgical exploration.

Results

A total of 129 patients were included: 65 (50.4%) were primary procedures, while 64 (49.6%) were revisional operations after primary restrictive bariatric surgery. Mean age was 47.9 ± 10.2 years, mean weight, and body mass index were, respectively, 105.3 ± 22.6 kg and 39.7 ± 9.6 kg/m². Postoperative morbidity rate was 7.0%. Mean follow-up was 53.2 ± 22.6 (range 24–94) months. During the follow-up period, a total of 14 (10.8%) patients entered the emergency department: 1 patient had melena, 4 renal colic, 1 acute cholecystitis, 2 gynecologic pathologies, 2 anastomotic ulcers, 1 perforated gastric ulcer, 1 diverticulitis and 2 gastroenteritis. There were no diagnoses of IH. During the follow-up period, no patient experienced recurrence of symptoms.

Conclusions

In the present study, the robotic approach confirms the low complication rate and absence of IH after “Double Loop” RA-RYGB in a large case-series at a medium-term follow-up.

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.