Monika E Hagen1, Minoa K Jung2, Jassim Fakhro2, Nicolas C Buchs2, Leo Buehler2, Jona M Mendoza2, Philippe Morel2. 1. Division of Digestive and Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Hospital Geneva, 4 Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland. monikahagen@aol.com. 2. Division of Digestive and Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Hospital Geneva, 4 Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this analysis is to compare the robotic EndoWrist Stapling System (EWSS) 45 mm (Intuitive Surgical Inc. Sunnyvale, CA, USA) and the ECHELON FLEX™ ENDOPATH® Staplers (EFES) 60 mm (Ethicon, Cincinnati, OH, USA) for gastric pouch formation during robotic gastric bypass surgery. METHODS: Patients who underwent robotic gastric bypass surgery with stapling using EWSS were matched with patients who underwent the same procedure with the EFES. Demographic, intra- and postoperative, and cost data were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 49 patients were identified who had undergone robotic gastric bypass surgery using EWSS. They were matched with 49 patients who underwent the equivalent procedure using EFES. With similar demographic parameters, corrected operating room time without cholecystectomy took longer for the patients that underwent surgery with EWSS (+22 min, p = 0.1042). Stapler clamping was unsuccessful in 19.0% of all recorded attempts with EWSS. Two intra-operative complications unrelated to stapling and one complication due to stapling were observed in the EWSS cohort, while none was observed for the EFES group. Significantly, more recharges were needed with EWSS to complete the gastric pouch (4.9 vs. 4.1, p = 0.0048) and overall stapling costs for the procedure were significantly higher (2212.2 vs. 1787.4 USD, p = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Gastric pouch formation using EWSS during robotic gastric bypass surgery is feasible. Due to the shorter length of EWSS compared to EFES, more stapling recharges are required to complete gastric pouch formation and the stapling costs for gastric bypass surgery are higher. Further systematic research should be conducted to precisely determine the value of the robotic EWSS for gastric bypass surgery.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this analysis is to compare the robotic EndoWrist Stapling System (EWSS) 45 mm (Intuitive Surgical Inc. Sunnyvale, CA, USA) and the ECHELON FLEX™ ENDOPATH® Staplers (EFES) 60 mm (Ethicon, Cincinnati, OH, USA) for gastric pouch formation during robotic gastric bypass surgery. METHODS:Patients who underwent robotic gastric bypass surgery with stapling using EWSS were matched with patients who underwent the same procedure with the EFES. Demographic, intra- and postoperative, and cost data were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 49 patients were identified who had undergone robotic gastric bypass surgery using EWSS. They were matched with 49 patients who underwent the equivalent procedure using EFES. With similar demographic parameters, corrected operating room time without cholecystectomy took longer for the patients that underwent surgery with EWSS (+22 min, p = 0.1042). Stapler clamping was unsuccessful in 19.0% of all recorded attempts with EWSS. Two intra-operative complications unrelated to stapling and one complication due to stapling were observed in the EWSS cohort, while none was observed for the EFES group. Significantly, more recharges were needed with EWSS to complete the gastric pouch (4.9 vs. 4.1, p = 0.0048) and overall stapling costs for the procedure were significantly higher (2212.2 vs. 1787.4 USD, p = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Gastric pouch formation using EWSS during robotic gastric bypass surgery is feasible. Due to the shorter length of EWSS compared to EFES, more stapling recharges are required to complete gastric pouch formation and the stapling costs for gastric bypass surgery are higher. Further systematic research should be conducted to precisely determine the value of the robotic EWSS for gastric bypass surgery.
Authors: Paulette Mukorako; Natacha Lemoine; Laurent Biertho; Stéfane Lebel; Marie-Claude Roy; Julie Plamondon; André Tchernof; Thibault V Varin; Fernando F Anhê; David H St-Pierre; André Marette; Denis Richard Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2021-10-22 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: Benjamin Clapp; Alexander Schrodt; Maria Ahmad; Ellen Wicker; Nishtha Sharma; Andres Vivar; Brian Davis Journal: JSLS Date: 2022 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 1.789