BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy has become a stand-alone procedure in the treatment of morbid obesity. There are very few reports on the use of robotic approach in sleeve gastrectomy. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this retrospective study is to report our early experience of robotic-assisted laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (RALSG) using a proctored training model with comparison to an institutional cohort of patients who underwent laparoscopic hand-assisted sleeve gastrectomy (LASG). SETTINGS: University hospital. METHODS: The study included 108 patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy either via the laparoscopic-assisted or robot-assisted approach during the study period. Of these 108 patients, 62 underwent LASG and 46 underwent RALSG. The console surgeon in the RALSG is a clinical year 4 (CY4) surgery resident. All CY4 surgery residents received targeted simulation training before their rotation. The console surgeon is proctored by the primary surgeon with assistance as needed by the second surgeon. RESULTS: The patients in the robotic and laparoscopic cohorts did not have a statistical difference in their demographic characteristics, preoperative co-morbidities, or complications. The mean operating time did not differ significantly between the 2 cohorts (121 min versus 110 min, P = .07). Patient follow-up in the LSG and RALSG were 91% and 90% at 3 months, 62% and 64% at 6 months, and 60% and 55% at 1 year, respectively. The mean percentage estimated weight loss (EWL%) at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year was greater in the robotic group but not statistically significant (27 versus 22 at 3 mo [P = .05] and 39 versus 34 at 6 mo [P = .025], 57 versus 48 at 1 yr [P = .09]). There was no mortality in either group. CONCLUSION: Early results of our experience with RALSG indicate low perioperative complication rates and comparable weight loss with LASG. The concept of a stepwise education model needs further validation with larger studies.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy has become a stand-alone procedure in the treatment of morbid obesity. There are very few reports on the use of robotic approach in sleeve gastrectomy. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this retrospective study is to report our early experience of robotic-assisted laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (RALSG) using a proctored training model with comparison to an institutional cohort of patients who underwent laparoscopic hand-assisted sleeve gastrectomy (LASG). SETTINGS: University hospital. METHODS: The study included 108 patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy either via the laparoscopic-assisted or robot-assisted approach during the study period. Of these 108 patients, 62 underwent LASG and 46 underwent RALSG. The console surgeon in the RALSG is a clinical year 4 (CY4) surgery resident. All CY4 surgery residents received targeted simulation training before their rotation. The console surgeon is proctored by the primary surgeon with assistance as needed by the second surgeon. RESULTS: The patients in the robotic and laparoscopic cohorts did not have a statistical difference in their demographic characteristics, preoperative co-morbidities, or complications. The mean operating time did not differ significantly between the 2 cohorts (121 min versus 110 min, P = .07). Patient follow-up in the LSG and RALSG were 91% and 90% at 3 months, 62% and 64% at 6 months, and 60% and 55% at 1 year, respectively. The mean percentage estimated weight loss (EWL%) at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year was greater in the robotic group but not statistically significant (27 versus 22 at 3 mo [P = .05] and 39 versus 34 at 6 mo [P = .025], 57 versus 48 at 1 yr [P = .09]). There was no mortality in either group. CONCLUSION: Early results of our experience with RALSG indicate low perioperative complication rates and comparable weight loss with LASG. The concept of a stepwise education model needs further validation with larger studies.
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: Jennifer L Levy; Marc S Levine; Stephen E Rubesin; Noel N Williams; Kristoffel R Dumon Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-02-06 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Reza Fazl Alizadeh; Shiri Li; Colette S Inaba; Andreea I Dinicu; Marcelo W Hinojosa; Brian R Smith; Michael J Stamos; Ninh T Nguyen Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-08-20 Impact factor: 4.584