The Longitudinal Efficiency of Robotic Surgery: an MBSAQIP Propensity Matched 4-Year Comparison of Robotic and Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery.


Journal

Obesity surgery
ISSN: 1708-0428
Titre abrégé: Obes Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9106714

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Oct 2020
Historique:
pubmed: 5 6 2020
medline: 15 4 2021
entrez: 5 6 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The objective of this study was to examine the MBSAQIP database to assess efficiency trends and perioperative outcomes in robotic bariatric surgery. Robotic (RA) and laparoscopic (L) sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and gastric bypass (RYGB) were compared using the 2015-2018 MBSAQIP Participant Use Data Files. Patients were propensity matched 1:1 based on sex, body mass index, assistant, and previous obesity or foregut surgery. A total of 93,802 patients were included. Median operative times were significantly longer for both RA-SG (89 vs. 62 min; p < 0.0001) and RA-RYGB (141 vs. 105 min; p < 0.0001) compared with laparoscopic. Over the 4-year period, the difference in operative times (OR delta) between RA-SG and L-SG was unchanged while the difference in operative times between RA-RYGB and L-RYGB increased. Both robotic groups were significantly more likely to be readmitted (RA-SG p = 0.001, RA-RYGB p = 0.006). Robotic SG was more likely to have a reintervention (p = 0.018) and extended length of stay (LOS) (> 4 days) compared with laparoscopic (p = < 0.0002). No significant differences were noted in morbidity and mortality by approach. Operative times were 30% longer for RA-SG and 25% longer for RA-RYGB when compared with laparoscopic. There was no significant improvement in OR delta for either RA-SG or RA-RYGB over the four years. Readmission rates were higher for both RA-SG and RA-RYGB. Robotic SG had a greater percentage of patients with extended LOS compared with laparoscopic. No evidence of improved efficiency for robotic bariatric surgery as defined by operative time or clinical outcomes was identified.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The objective of this study was to examine the MBSAQIP database to assess efficiency trends and perioperative outcomes in robotic bariatric surgery.
METHODS METHODS
Robotic (RA) and laparoscopic (L) sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and gastric bypass (RYGB) were compared using the 2015-2018 MBSAQIP Participant Use Data Files. Patients were propensity matched 1:1 based on sex, body mass index, assistant, and previous obesity or foregut surgery. A total of 93,802 patients were included.
RESULTS RESULTS
Median operative times were significantly longer for both RA-SG (89 vs. 62 min; p < 0.0001) and RA-RYGB (141 vs. 105 min; p < 0.0001) compared with laparoscopic. Over the 4-year period, the difference in operative times (OR delta) between RA-SG and L-SG was unchanged while the difference in operative times between RA-RYGB and L-RYGB increased. Both robotic groups were significantly more likely to be readmitted (RA-SG p = 0.001, RA-RYGB p = 0.006). Robotic SG was more likely to have a reintervention (p = 0.018) and extended length of stay (LOS) (> 4 days) compared with laparoscopic (p = < 0.0002). No significant differences were noted in morbidity and mortality by approach.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Operative times were 30% longer for RA-SG and 25% longer for RA-RYGB when compared with laparoscopic. There was no significant improvement in OR delta for either RA-SG or RA-RYGB over the four years. Readmission rates were higher for both RA-SG and RA-RYGB. Robotic SG had a greater percentage of patients with extended LOS compared with laparoscopic. No evidence of improved efficiency for robotic bariatric surgery as defined by operative time or clinical outcomes was identified.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32495073
doi: 10.1007/s11695-020-04712-z
pii: 10.1007/s11695-020-04712-z
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

3706-3713

Auteurs

Mark Dudash (M)

Department of General Surgery, Geisinger Medical Center, 100 N. Academy Avenue, MC 21-69, Danville, PA, 17822, USA.

Jason Kuhn (J)

Department of General Surgery, Geisinger Medical Center, 100 N. Academy Avenue, MC 21-69, Danville, PA, 17822, USA.

James Dove (J)

Department of General Surgery, Geisinger Medical Center, 100 N. Academy Avenue, MC 21-69, Danville, PA, 17822, USA.

Marcus Fluck (M)

Department of General Surgery, Geisinger Medical Center, 100 N. Academy Avenue, MC 21-69, Danville, PA, 17822, USA.

Ryan Horsley (R)

Department of General Surgery, Geisinger Medical Center, 100 N. Academy Avenue, MC 21-69, Danville, PA, 17822, USA.

Jon Gabrielsen (J)

Department of General Surgery, Geisinger Medical Center, 100 N. Academy Avenue, MC 21-69, Danville, PA, 17822, USA.

Mustapha Daouadi (M)

Department of General Surgery, Geisinger Medical Center, 100 N. Academy Avenue, MC 21-69, Danville, PA, 17822, USA.

Anthony T Petrick (AT)

Department of General Surgery, Geisinger Medical Center, 100 N. Academy Avenue, MC 21-69, Danville, PA, 17822, USA.

David M Parker (DM)

Department of General Surgery, Geisinger Medical Center, 100 N. Academy Avenue, MC 21-69, Danville, PA, 17822, USA. dparker@geisinger.edu.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH