Pros and Cons of Robotic Revisional Bariatric Surgery

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.

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

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

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

Purpose

In recent years, the need for revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) procedures has experienced a noteworthy surge to confront complexities and weight recidivism. Despite being a subject of controversy for many, the utilization of the Da Vinci robotic platform (Intuitive Surgical, Inc.) may present benefits in RBS. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of robotic RBS in comparison to Laparoscopic RBS.

Methods

A meticulous and thorough analysis was ensured through a comprehensive exploration of the literature, which included PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane. This exploration was conducted in adherence to the directives outlined in the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for quality assessment.

Results

A total of 11 studies were included in this meta-analysis, comprising 55,889 in the laparoscopic group and 5,809 in the robotic group. No significant differences were observed in the leak, bleeding, operative time, or length of stay across both groups. However, the robotic group showed higher rates of conversion to open surgery (odds ratio [OR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.79; p < 0.0001; I2 = 0%), reoperation (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87; p = 0.0009; I2 = 6%), and readmission (higher rate of readmission in the robotic group; OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.62-0.92; p = 0.005; I2 = 30%).

Conclusion

Robotic-assisted bariatric surgery has no significant advantage over conventional laparoscopic surgery. Further research is warranted to explore and evaluate surgeons' methodology and proficiency differences.

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Characteristics and outcomes for patients undergoing revisional bariatric surgery due to persistent obesity: a retrospective cohort study of 10,589 patients

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric surgery in an option for patients who experience weight regain or inadequate weight loss after primary elective bariatric procedures. However, there is conflicting data on safety outcomes of revisional procedures. We aim to characterize patient demographics, procedure type, and safety outcomes for those undergoing revisional compared to initial bariatric interventions to guide management of these patients.

METHODS

The 2020 Metabolic and Bariatric Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) registry was analyzed, comparing primary elective to revisional bariatric procedures for inadequate weight loss. Bivariate analysis was performed to determine between group differences. Multivariable logistic regression determined factors associated with serious complications or mortality.

RESULTS

We evaluated 158,424 patients, including 10,589 (6.7%) revisional procedures. Patients undergoing revisional procedures were more like to be female (85.5% revisional vs. 81.0% initial; p < 0.001), had lower body mass index (43.6 ± 7.8 kg/m² revisional vs. 45.2 ± 7.8 kg/m² initial; p < 0.001), and less metabolic comorbidities than patients undergoing primary bariatric surgery. The most common revisional procedures were Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (48.4%) and sleeve gastrectomy (32.5%). Revisional procedures had longer operative duration compared to primary procedures. Patients undergoing revisional procedures were more likely to experience readmission to hospital (4.8% revisional vs. 2.9% initial; p < 0.001) and require reoperation (2.4% revisional vs. 1.0% initial; p < 0.001) within 30 days of the procedure. Revisional procedures were independently associated with increased serious complications (OR 1.49, CI 1.36-1.64, p < 0.001) but were not a significant predictor of 30-day mortality (OR 0.74, CI 0.36-1.50, p = 0.409).

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison to primary bariatric surgery, patients undergoing revisional procedures have less metabolic comorbidities. Revisional procedures have worse perioperative outcomes and are independently associated with serious complications. These data help to contextualize outcomes for patients undergoing revisional bariatric procedures and to inform decision making in these patients.

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.

Is development in bariatric surgery in Germany compatible with international standards? A review of 16 years of data

Bariatric surgery has expanded tremendously internationally over the past decade. In recent years, bariatric surgery has experienced a significant growth in Germany. However, the question arises as to whether this development is in line with international developments or whether there is still room for improvement that could be challenged. 63,990 primary bariatric procedures recorded in the German Bariatric Surgery Registry (GBSR) were analyzed from 2005 to April 2021. The distribution of procedures according to different variants was analyzed and presented. In the last 16 years, 17 different procedures have been performed. The most common surgical procedure was sleeve gastrectomy (SG), followed by Roux-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (42%). Adjustable gastric banding (AGB) has declined over time, from 23.5% in the first 5 years to 0.2% in recent years. In comparison, omega-loop gastric bypass has increased over the past 5 years (from 0.4% in the first 5 years to 5.9% in the last 5 years). Laparoscopic procedures have accounted for 96.4% of all bariatric surgeries in recent years. The frequency of some procedures has decreased and some bariatric procedures have lost significance. Overall, bariatric surgery in Germany has developed positively compared to the international trend. Nevertheless, there is one area that needs to be optimized: the development of robotic bariatric surgery, which crawls behind in Germany compared to other countries. To establish the technology in bariatric surgery in a timely manner, a balance must be found between cost neutrality and patient-oriented applications.

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.

Intraoperative conversion and complications in robotic assisted primary and redo gastric bypass surgery

The rise of robotic assisted surgery in the treatment of morbidly obese patients has enlarged the armamentarium for surgeons involved in bariatric surgery. This in particular is of great advantage not only in primary cases, but also in patients undergoing revisional procedures following preceding upper GI surgery. In the following, our experience with intraoperative conversions and complications in revisional robotic surgery using the Da Vinci robotic system will be reported and compared to primary robotic bypass surgery and the literature. In a 36-month period, a total of 157 minimally invasive bariatric procedures (48 robotic assisted, 109 laparoscopic) were performed. Out of 43 patients receiving a gastric bypass 32 (74%) were performed robotically. Out of these 20 (62.5%) had previous operations (RRBP): one hiatal mesh repair, one open Mason operation, eight gastric band, nine gastric sleeve, one sleeve with fundoplication. The Da Vinci Xi was used for all surgeries. 3/20 (15%) RRBP were converted to open laparotomy because of a huge left liver lobe (1), extreme adhesions (1) and short mesentery (1) (p = 0.631 vs 1/12 RBP). One out of these had to be reoperated for an insufficiency of the gastroenterostomy. 3/17 (23%) patients (RRBP) without conversion had complications: hemorrhage (1), insufficiency of biliodigestive anastomosis (1), insufficiency of gastroenterostomy (1). There was no mortality and length of hospital stay was 3.5 days in uncomplicated cases and 12.3 days in complicated cases (p < 0.05). This preliminary experience suggests, that robotic revisional surgery can be performed safely even in complicated cases. Conversion to laparoscopic or open surgery may be required when adverse anatomical conditions are present. However, the incidence of complications was not increased when conversion was performed. In this series, the incidence of complications was not greater in case of revisional surgery.

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.