Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy: a propensity score-matched comparative analysis using the 2015-2016 MBSAQIP database.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Bariatric Surgery
/ methods
Databases, Factual
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Gastrectomy
/ methods
Gastric Bypass
/ methods
Humans
Laparoscopy
/ methods
Male
Middle Aged
Obesity, Morbid
/ surgery
Propensity Score
Quality Improvement
Retrospective Studies
Robotic Surgical Procedures
/ methods
Treatment Outcome
Young Adult
Bariatric surgery
Minimally invasive surgery
Robotic bariatric surgery
Robotic gastric bypass
Robotic sleeve gastrectomy
Journal
Surgical endoscopy
ISSN: 1432-2218
Titre abrégé: Surg Endosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8806653
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2019
05 2019
Historique:
received:
21
05
2018
accepted:
04
09
2018
pubmed:
19
9
2018
medline:
3
4
2020
entrez:
19
9
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Robotic-assisted bariatric surgery is part of the armamentarium in many bariatric centers. However, limited data correlate the robotic benefits to with clinical outcomes. This study compares 30-day outcomes between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic procedures for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG). Using the 2015-2016 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database, patients between18- and 65-year-old were included. To adjust for potential confounders, 1:1 propensity-score matching (PSM) was performed using 22 preoperative characteristics. Second PSM analysis was performed adding operative time and conversion rate. 269,923 patients underwent SG (n = 190,494) or RYGB (n = 79,429). The operative time was significantly longer in the Robotic-assisted compared to laparoscopic approach either for SG (102.58 ± 46 vs. 73.38 ± 36; P < 0.001) or for RYGB (158.29 ± 65 vs. 120.17 ± 56; P < 0.001). In the SG cohort (12,877 matched cases), the robotic approach showed significant reduction of postoperative bleeding (0.16% vs. 0.43%; P < 0.001) and strictures (0.19% vs. 0.33%; P = 0.04) with similar results in the other 30-day outcomes in both analyses. Similarly, for the RYGB cohort (5780 matched cases), the robotic approach showed significantly fewer requirements for blood transfusions (0.64% vs. 1.16%; P = 0.004) with no statistically different results for the other's outcomes. Conversely, when adding operative time and conversion rate to the PSM analysis, the robotic platform showed significantly shorter length of stay (2.12 ± 1.9 vs. 2.30 ± 3.1 days; P < 0.001), reduction of anastomotic leak (0.52% vs. 0.92%; P = 0.01), renal complications (0.16% vs. 0.38%; P = 0.004), and venous thromboembolism (0.24% vs. 0.52%; P = 0.02). Our findings show that postoperative bleeding and blood transfusion are significantly reduced with the robotic platform, and after correcting for all factors including operative time, the robotic-assisted approach is associated with better postoperative outcomes especially for RYGB.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Robotic-assisted bariatric surgery is part of the armamentarium in many bariatric centers. However, limited data correlate the robotic benefits to with clinical outcomes. This study compares 30-day outcomes between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic procedures for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG).
METHODS
Using the 2015-2016 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database, patients between18- and 65-year-old were included. To adjust for potential confounders, 1:1 propensity-score matching (PSM) was performed using 22 preoperative characteristics. Second PSM analysis was performed adding operative time and conversion rate.
RESULTS
269,923 patients underwent SG (n = 190,494) or RYGB (n = 79,429). The operative time was significantly longer in the Robotic-assisted compared to laparoscopic approach either for SG (102.58 ± 46 vs. 73.38 ± 36; P < 0.001) or for RYGB (158.29 ± 65 vs. 120.17 ± 56; P < 0.001). In the SG cohort (12,877 matched cases), the robotic approach showed significant reduction of postoperative bleeding (0.16% vs. 0.43%; P < 0.001) and strictures (0.19% vs. 0.33%; P = 0.04) with similar results in the other 30-day outcomes in both analyses. Similarly, for the RYGB cohort (5780 matched cases), the robotic approach showed significantly fewer requirements for blood transfusions (0.64% vs. 1.16%; P = 0.004) with no statistically different results for the other's outcomes. Conversely, when adding operative time and conversion rate to the PSM analysis, the robotic platform showed significantly shorter length of stay (2.12 ± 1.9 vs. 2.30 ± 3.1 days; P < 0.001), reduction of anastomotic leak (0.52% vs. 0.92%; P = 0.01), renal complications (0.16% vs. 0.38%; P = 0.004), and venous thromboembolism (0.24% vs. 0.52%; P = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings show that postoperative bleeding and blood transfusion are significantly reduced with the robotic platform, and after correcting for all factors including operative time, the robotic-assisted approach is associated with better postoperative outcomes especially for RYGB.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30225604
doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6422-7
pii: 10.1007/s00464-018-6422-7
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1600-1612Références
Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2013 Jan-Feb;9(1):88-93
pubmed: 22055389
Obes Surg. 2015 Jun;25(6):997-1002
pubmed: 25394589
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2001 Dec;11(6):415-9
pubmed: 11814134
Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2017 Nov;13(11):1847-1852
pubmed: 28844577
J Am Coll Surg. 2015 Apr;220(4):550-8
pubmed: 25728140
Obes Surg. 2015 Nov;25(11):2180-9
pubmed: 26344797
J Robot Surg. 2008 Sep;2(3):159-63
pubmed: 27628253
Ann Surg. 2001 Sep;234(3):279-89; discussion 289-91
pubmed: 11524581
Arch Surg. 2011 Nov;146(11):1314-22
pubmed: 22106325
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2015 Dec;25(6):496-9
pubmed: 26422087
Dig Surg. 2015;32(2):98-107
pubmed: 25765889
J Am Coll Surg. 2010 Jan;210(1):60-5.e1-2
pubmed: 20123333
Surg Endosc. 2011 Jul;25(7):2288-95
pubmed: 21298533
Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2013 Mar-Apr;9(2):284-8
pubmed: 22361807
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2011 May;21(4):295-9
pubmed: 21443432
Surg Endosc. 2007 May;21(5):729-33
pubmed: 17308948
Surg Endosc. 2014 Feb;28(2):414-26
pubmed: 24196545
Obes Surg. 1999 Apr;9(2):206-9
pubmed: 10340781
J Robot Surg. 2011 Jun;5(2):101-7
pubmed: 21765876
Obes Surg. 2012 Jan;22(1):52-61
pubmed: 21538177
Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2018 Mar;14(3):304-310
pubmed: 29276076
Surg Endosc. 2018 Feb;32(2):610-616
pubmed: 28726145
Obes Surg. 1994 Nov;4(4):353-357
pubmed: 10742801
Surg Endosc. 2014 May;28(5):1629-33
pubmed: 24385247
Am Surg. 2003 Nov;69(11):930-2
pubmed: 14627250
Surg Endosc. 2015 Jul;29(7):1729-36
pubmed: 25318362
Obes Surg. 2014 Dec;24(12):2031-9
pubmed: 24962109
J Am Coll Surg. 2004 Dec;199(6):863-8
pubmed: 15555968
Surg Technol Int. 2012 Dec;22:72-6
pubmed: 23065805
J Robot Surg. 2016 Jun;10(2):111-5
pubmed: 26983848
Obes Surg. 2016 Dec;26(12):3031-3044
pubmed: 27726045
Surg Endosc. 2012 Apr;26(4):1116-21
pubmed: 22044973
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018 Jan;25(1):76-83
pubmed: 28734971
Multivariate Behav Res. 2011 Feb 7;46(1):90-118
pubmed: 26771582
Obes Surg. 2013 Apr;23(4):467-73
pubmed: 23318944
Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2015 Jan-Feb;11(1):207-13
pubmed: 25066438
Surg Endosc. 2014 Feb;28(2):456-65
pubmed: 24196542
NCHS Data Brief. 2017 Oct;(288):1-8
pubmed: 29155689
Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2008;17(3):160-7
pubmed: 18609002
Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2013 Jan-Feb;9(1):e20-2
pubmed: 22365186
Obes Surg. 2017 Jan;27(1):245-253
pubmed: 27815863
Obes Surg. 2013 Nov;23(11):1743-52
pubmed: 23904057