Cargando…

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

INTRODUCTION: Robotic-assisted bariatric surgery is increasingly performed. There remains controversy about the overall benefit of robotic-assisted (RBS) compared to conventional laparoscopic (LBS) bariatric surgery. In this study, we used a large national risk-stratified bariatric clinical database...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Acevedo, Edwin, Mazzei, Michael, Zhao, Huaqing, Lu, Xiaoning, Soans, Rohit, Edwards, Michael A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7222911/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31209608
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06915-7
_version_ 1783533674039345152
author Acevedo, Edwin
Mazzei, Michael
Zhao, Huaqing
Lu, Xiaoning
Soans, Rohit
Edwards, Michael A.
author_facet Acevedo, Edwin
Mazzei, Michael
Zhao, Huaqing
Lu, Xiaoning
Soans, Rohit
Edwards, Michael A.
author_sort Acevedo, Edwin
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Robotic-assisted bariatric surgery is increasingly performed. There remains controversy about the overall benefit of robotic-assisted (RBS) compared to conventional laparoscopic (LBS) bariatric surgery. In this study, we used a large national risk-stratified bariatric clinical database to compare outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic gastric bypass (RNYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the 2015 and 2016 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) Participant Use Data File (PUF) was performed. Primary robotic and laparoscopic RYNGB and SG were analyzed. Descriptive analysis was performed of the unmatched cohorts, followed by 1:3 case-controlled matching. Cases and controls were matched by patient demographics and pre-operative comorbidities, and peri-operative outcomes compared. RESULTS: 77,991 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RnYGB) (7.5% robotic-assisted) and 189,503 SG (6.8% robotic-assisted) cases were identified. Operative length was significantly higher in both the robotic-assisted RnYGB and SG cohorts (p < 0.0001). Outcomes were similar between the robotic-assisted and laparoscopic RnYGB cohorts, except a lower mortality rate (p = 0.05), transfusion requirement (p = 0.005), aggregate bleeding (p = 0.04), and surgical site infections (SSI) (p = 0.006) in the robotic-assisted cohort. Outcomes were also similar between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic SG, except for a longer length of stay (p < 0.0001) and higher rates of conversion (p < 0.0001), 30-day intervention (p = 0.01), operative drain present (p < 0.0001), sepsis (p = 0.01), and organ space SSI (p = 0.0002) in the robotic cohort. Bleeding was lower in the robotic SG cohort and mortality was similar. CONCLUSION: Both robotic-assisted and laparoscopic RnYGB and SG are overall very safe. Robotic-assisted gastric bypass is associated with a lower mortality and morbidity; however, a clear benefit for robotic-assisted SG compared to laparoscopic SG was not seen. Given the longer operative and hospital duration, robotic SG is not cost-effective. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-019-06915-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7222911
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72229112020-05-15 Outcomes in conventional laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted primary bariatric surgery: a retrospective, case–controlled study of the MBSAQIP database Acevedo, Edwin Mazzei, Michael Zhao, Huaqing Lu, Xiaoning Soans, Rohit Edwards, Michael A. Surg Endosc Article INTRODUCTION: Robotic-assisted bariatric surgery is increasingly performed. There remains controversy about the overall benefit of robotic-assisted (RBS) compared to conventional laparoscopic (LBS) bariatric surgery. In this study, we used a large national risk-stratified bariatric clinical database to compare outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic gastric bypass (RNYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the 2015 and 2016 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) Participant Use Data File (PUF) was performed. Primary robotic and laparoscopic RYNGB and SG were analyzed. Descriptive analysis was performed of the unmatched cohorts, followed by 1:3 case-controlled matching. Cases and controls were matched by patient demographics and pre-operative comorbidities, and peri-operative outcomes compared. RESULTS: 77,991 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RnYGB) (7.5% robotic-assisted) and 189,503 SG (6.8% robotic-assisted) cases were identified. Operative length was significantly higher in both the robotic-assisted RnYGB and SG cohorts (p < 0.0001). Outcomes were similar between the robotic-assisted and laparoscopic RnYGB cohorts, except a lower mortality rate (p = 0.05), transfusion requirement (p = 0.005), aggregate bleeding (p = 0.04), and surgical site infections (SSI) (p = 0.006) in the robotic-assisted cohort. Outcomes were also similar between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic SG, except for a longer length of stay (p < 0.0001) and higher rates of conversion (p < 0.0001), 30-day intervention (p = 0.01), operative drain present (p < 0.0001), sepsis (p = 0.01), and organ space SSI (p = 0.0002) in the robotic cohort. Bleeding was lower in the robotic SG cohort and mortality was similar. CONCLUSION: Both robotic-assisted and laparoscopic RnYGB and SG are overall very safe. Robotic-assisted gastric bypass is associated with a lower mortality and morbidity; however, a clear benefit for robotic-assisted SG compared to laparoscopic SG was not seen. Given the longer operative and hospital duration, robotic SG is not cost-effective. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-019-06915-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer US 2019-06-17 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7222911/ /pubmed/31209608 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06915-7 Text en © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019 This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.
spellingShingle Article
Acevedo, Edwin
Mazzei, Michael
Zhao, Huaqing
Lu, Xiaoning
Soans, Rohit
Edwards, Michael A.
Outcomes in conventional laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted primary bariatric surgery: a retrospective, case–controlled study of the MBSAQIP database
title Outcomes in conventional laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted primary bariatric surgery: a retrospective, case–controlled study of the MBSAQIP database
title_full Outcomes in conventional laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted primary bariatric surgery: a retrospective, case–controlled study of the MBSAQIP database
title_fullStr Outcomes in conventional laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted primary bariatric surgery: a retrospective, case–controlled study of the MBSAQIP database
title_full_unstemmed Outcomes in conventional laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted primary bariatric surgery: a retrospective, case–controlled study of the MBSAQIP database
title_short Outcomes in conventional laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted primary bariatric surgery: a retrospective, case–controlled study of the MBSAQIP database
title_sort outcomes in conventional laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted primary bariatric surgery: a retrospective, case–controlled study of the mbsaqip database
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7222911/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31209608
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06915-7
work_keys_str_mv AT acevedoedwin outcomesinconventionallaparoscopicversusroboticassistedprimarybariatricsurgeryaretrospectivecasecontrolledstudyofthembsaqipdatabase
AT mazzeimichael outcomesinconventionallaparoscopicversusroboticassistedprimarybariatricsurgeryaretrospectivecasecontrolledstudyofthembsaqipdatabase
AT zhaohuaqing outcomesinconventionallaparoscopicversusroboticassistedprimarybariatricsurgeryaretrospectivecasecontrolledstudyofthembsaqipdatabase
AT luxiaoning outcomesinconventionallaparoscopicversusroboticassistedprimarybariatricsurgeryaretrospectivecasecontrolledstudyofthembsaqipdatabase
AT soansrohit outcomesinconventionallaparoscopicversusroboticassistedprimarybariatricsurgeryaretrospectivecasecontrolledstudyofthembsaqipdatabase
AT edwardsmichaela outcomesinconventionallaparoscopicversusroboticassistedprimarybariatricsurgeryaretrospectivecasecontrolledstudyofthembsaqipdatabase