BACKGROUND: In the United States, 37.5 % of adults (78 million) are obese. The direct medical costs of treating obesity-related disease account for more than 6 % of the national health expenditure. Robotic bariatric surgery is becoming more common, but it is unclear whether robotic procedures result in lower complication rates. Additionally, some evidence is conflicting regarding the costs of robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) compared with those of laparoscopic RYGB. This study aimed to compare complication rates, operative characteristics, and expected costs between robotic and laparoscopic RYGB. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed with searches of five databases and grey literature, hand searches, and reference and forward citation searches. Studies comparing robotic versus laparoscopic RYGB involving patients ages 18-65 years who met the National Institutes of Health (NIH) criteria for bariatric surgery were included in the study if they reported overall or major complication rates. Outcomes were pooled using random-effects metaanalysis. A decision-tree economic analysis was performed to calculate expected costs associated with each technique. RESULTS: The systematic search strategy returned 1,374 potentially relevant studies. The inclusion criteria were met by 10 of these studies, which included results from 2,557 patients. The overall major and minor complications did not differ significantly between the robotic and laparoscopic groups. The rates for anastomotic leak, bleeding, stricture, and reoperation did not differ significantly. An economic analysis found that the expected costs for robotic RYGB ($15,447) were higher than for laparoscopic RYGB ($11,956). Sensitivity analyses produced similar results. CONCLUSION: The complication rates did not differ significantly between robotic and laparoscopic RYGB, but the expected costs were greater for robotic RYGB. Further cost effectiveness analyses are recommended before adoption of a robotic approach to RYGB.
BACKGROUND: In the United States, 37.5 % of adults (78 million) are obese. The direct medical costs of treating obesity-related disease account for more than 6 % of the national health expenditure. Robotic bariatric surgery is becoming more common, but it is unclear whether robotic procedures result in lower complication rates. Additionally, some evidence is conflicting regarding the costs of robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) compared with those of laparoscopic RYGB. This study aimed to compare complication rates, operative characteristics, and expected costs between robotic and laparoscopic RYGB. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed with searches of five databases and grey literature, hand searches, and reference and forward citation searches. Studies comparing robotic versus laparoscopic RYGB involving patients ages 18-65 years who met the National Institutes of Health (NIH) criteria for bariatric surgery were included in the study if they reported overall or major complication rates. Outcomes were pooled using random-effects metaanalysis. A decision-tree economic analysis was performed to calculate expected costs associated with each technique. RESULTS: The systematic search strategy returned 1,374 potentially relevant studies. The inclusion criteria were met by 10 of these studies, which included results from 2,557 patients. The overall major and minor complications did not differ significantly between the robotic and laparoscopic groups. The rates for anastomotic leak, bleeding, stricture, and reoperation did not differ significantly. An economic analysis found that the expected costs for robotic RYGB ($15,447) were higher than for laparoscopic RYGB ($11,956). Sensitivity analyses produced similar results. CONCLUSION: The complication rates did not differ significantly between robotic and laparoscopic RYGB, but the expected costs were greater for robotic RYGB. Further cost effectiveness analyses are recommended before adoption of a robotic approach to RYGB.
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Gunn E Vist; Regina Kunz; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Holger J Schünemann Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-04-26
Authors: Chan W Park; Edward C F Lam; Teresa M Walsh; Maxine Karimoto; Adrienne T Ma; Matthew Koo; Chet Hammill; Kenric Murayama; Cedric S F Lorenzo; Racquel Bueno Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-05-26 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Nicolas C Buchs; François Pugin; Pascal Bucher; Monika E Hagen; Gilles Chassot; Pascale Koutny-Fong; Philippe Morel Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-11-02 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Walaa F Abdelmoaty; Christy M Dunst; Chris Neighorn; Lee L Swanstrom; Chet W Hammill Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-12-07 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Amir Szold; Roberto Bergamaschi; Ivo Broeders; Jenny Dankelman; Antonello Forgione; Thomas Langø; Andreas Melzer; Yoav Mintz; Salvador Morales-Conde; Michael Rhodes; Richard Satava; Chung-Ngai Tang; Ramon Vilallonga Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-11-08 Impact factor: 4.584