Adam C Celio1, Kevin R Kasten1, Andrea Schwoerer1, Walter J Pories1, Konstantinos Spaniolas2. 1. Department of Surgery, Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina. 2. Department of Surgery, Health Sciences Center Stony Brook Medicine, Stony Brook, New York. Electronic address: konstantinos.spaniolas@stonybrookmedicine.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of robotic assistance for gastric bypass remains controversial. Using a large nationwide cohort, we compared early outcomes after robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (Robot-RYGB) with the laparoscopic technique (LRYGB). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to use a bariatric-specific, large, nationwide cohort with several years of data to compare the early postoperative outcomes of the Robot-RYGB and LRYGB. SETTING: Nationwide register-based cohort study. METHODS: The Bariatric Outcomes Longitudinal Database from 2007 to 2012 was used to identify patients who underwent nonrevisional Robot-RYGB or LRYGB. Propensity matching was used to account for differences in age, body mass index, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, multiple preoperative co-morbidities, and procedural year. A second propensity score was calculated with adjustment of operative time in addition to the other adjusted variables. RESULTS: We identified 137,455 patients who underwent Robot-RYGB (n = 2415) or LRYGB (n = 135,040) with a mean body mass index of 47.1 ± 8.4 kg/m2 and age of 45.4 ± 11.7 years. In the propensity-matched cohorts, there were 30-day differences in operative time (150.2 ± 72.5 versus 111.8 ± 47.6, P<.001); 30-day rates of reoperation (4.8% versus 3.1%, P = .002); 90-day rates of reoperation (8.8% versus 5.3%, P<.001), complication (15.8% versus 12.5%, P = .001), readmission (8.5% versus 6.4%, P = .005), stricture (3.5% versus 2.0%, P = .001), ulceration (1.2% versus .6%, P = .034), nausea or emesis (6.4% versus 4.36%, P = .001), and anastomotic leak (1.6% versus .2%, P<.001) when comparing Robot-RYGB with LRYGB. After including operative time in propensity matching, there were no significant differences in rates of 30-day readmission or ulceration or 90-day readmission or ulceration; all other differences remained significant. CONCLUSIONS: Despite controlling for patient characteristics, patients undergoing Robot-RYGB developed higher rates of early morbidity compared with LRYGB, suggesting LRYGB may provide improved postoperative outcomes. Further studies are needed to definitively compare these 2 operative approaches.
BACKGROUND: The role of robotic assistance for gastric bypass remains controversial. Using a large nationwide cohort, we compared early outcomes after robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (Robot-RYGB) with the laparoscopic technique (LRYGB). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to use a bariatric-specific, large, nationwide cohort with several years of data to compare the early postoperative outcomes of the Robot-RYGB and LRYGB. SETTING: Nationwide register-based cohort study. METHODS: The Bariatric Outcomes Longitudinal Database from 2007 to 2012 was used to identify patients who underwent nonrevisional Robot-RYGB or LRYGB. Propensity matching was used to account for differences in age, body mass index, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, multiple preoperative co-morbidities, and procedural year. A second propensity score was calculated with adjustment of operative time in addition to the other adjusted variables. RESULTS: We identified 137,455 patients who underwent Robot-RYGB (n = 2415) or LRYGB (n = 135,040) with a mean body mass index of 47.1 ± 8.4 kg/m2 and age of 45.4 ± 11.7 years. In the propensity-matched cohorts, there were 30-day differences in operative time (150.2 ± 72.5 versus 111.8 ± 47.6, P<.001); 30-day rates of reoperation (4.8% versus 3.1%, P = .002); 90-day rates of reoperation (8.8% versus 5.3%, P<.001), complication (15.8% versus 12.5%, P = .001), readmission (8.5% versus 6.4%, P = .005), stricture (3.5% versus 2.0%, P = .001), ulceration (1.2% versus .6%, P = .034), nausea or emesis (6.4% versus 4.36%, P = .001), and anastomotic leak (1.6% versus .2%, P<.001) when comparing Robot-RYGB with LRYGB. After including operative time in propensity matching, there were no significant differences in rates of 30-day readmission or ulceration or 90-day readmission or ulceration; all other differences remained significant. CONCLUSIONS: Despite controlling for patient characteristics, patients undergoing Robot-RYGB developed higher rates of early morbidity compared with LRYGB, suggesting LRYGB may provide improved postoperative outcomes. Further studies are needed to definitively compare these 2 operative approaches.