BACKGROUND: Robotic technology has recently emerged in different surgical specialties, but the experience with robotic sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) is scarce in the literature. The purpose of this study is to compare our preliminary experience with RSG versus the descriptive results of a systematic review of the laparoscopic approach. METHODS: Data from our RSG experience were retrospectively collected. Two surgeons performed all the cases in one single surgery center. Such information was compared with a systematic review of 22 selected studies that included 3,148 laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) cases. RSG were performed using the daVinci Surgical System. RESULTS: This study included 134 RSG vs. 3,148 LSG. Mean age and mean BMI was 43 ± 12.6 vs. 40.7 ± 11.6 (p = 0.022), and 45 ± 7.1 vs. 43.6 ± 8.1 (p = 0.043), respectively. Leaks were found in 0 RSG vs. 1.97% LSG (p = 0.101); strictures in 0 vs. 0.43% (p = 0.447); bleeding in 0.7 vs. 1.21% (p = 0.594); and mortality in 0 vs. 0.1% (p = 0.714), respectively. Mean surgical time was calculated in 106.6 ± 48.8 vs. 94.5 ± 39.9 min (p = 0.006); and mean hospital length of stay was 2.2 ± 0.6 vs. 3.3 ± 1.7 days (p = <0.005), respectively. Four (2.9%) complications were found in our robotic series. CONCLUSIONS: Our series shows that RSG is a safe alternative when used in bariatric surgery, showing similar results as the laparoscopic approach. Surgical time is longer in the robotic approach, while hospital length of stay is lower. No leaks or strictures were found in the robotic cases. However, further studies with larger sample size and randomization are warranted.
BACKGROUND: Robotic technology has recently emerged in different surgical specialties, but the experience with robotic sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) is scarce in the literature. The purpose of this study is to compare our preliminary experience with RSG versus the descriptive results of a systematic review of the laparoscopic approach. METHODS: Data from our RSG experience were retrospectively collected. Two surgeons performed all the cases in one single surgery center. Such information was compared with a systematic review of 22 selected studies that included 3,148 laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) cases. RSG were performed using the daVinci Surgical System. RESULTS: This study included 134 RSG vs. 3,148 LSG. Mean age and mean BMI was 43 ± 12.6 vs. 40.7 ± 11.6 (p = 0.022), and 45 ± 7.1 vs. 43.6 ± 8.1 (p = 0.043), respectively. Leaks were found in 0 RSG vs. 1.97% LSG (p = 0.101); strictures in 0 vs. 0.43% (p = 0.447); bleeding in 0.7 vs. 1.21% (p = 0.594); and mortality in 0 vs. 0.1% (p = 0.714), respectively. Mean surgical time was calculated in 106.6 ± 48.8 vs. 94.5 ± 39.9 min (p = 0.006); and mean hospital length of stay was 2.2 ± 0.6 vs. 3.3 ± 1.7 days (p = <0.005), respectively. Four (2.9%) complications were found in our robotic series. CONCLUSIONS: Our series shows that RSG is a safe alternative when used in bariatric surgery, showing similar results as the laparoscopic approach. Surgical time is longer in the robotic approach, while hospital length of stay is lower. No leaks or strictures were found in the robotic cases. However, further studies with larger sample size and randomization are warranted.
Authors: Manuel Ferrer Márquez; Manuel Ferrer Ayza; Ricardo Belda Lozano; María del Mar Rico Morales; Jose Miguel García Díez; Ricardo Belda Poujoulet Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: S Y Lee; C H Lim; S Pasupathy; R Poopalalingam; K W Tham; S Ganguly; C H D Wai; W K Wong Journal: Singapore Med J Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 1.858
Authors: Ana Maria Burgos; Italo Braghetto; Attila Csendes; Fernando Maluenda; Owen Korn; Julio Yarmuch; Luis Gutierrez Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Juan C Rodríguez-Sanjuán; Marcos Gómez-Ruiz; Soledad Trugeda-Carrera; Carlos Manuel-Palazuelos; Antonio López-Useros; Manuel Gómez-Fleitas Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-02-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: F S Wehrtmann; J R de la Garza; K F Kowalewski; M W Schmidt; K Müller; C Tapking; P Probst; M K Diener; L Fischer; B P Müller-Stich; F Nickel Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Victoria K Pepper; Terrence M Rager; Karen A Diefenbach; Mehul V Raval; Steven Teich; Marc P Michalsky Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 4.129