Katherine D Gray1, Maureen D Moore1, Adham Elmously1, Omar Bellorin1, Rasa Zarnegar1, Gregory Dakin1, Alfons Pomp1, Cheguevara Afaneh2,3. 1. Department of Surgery, New York Presbyterian Hospital-Weill Cornell Medicine, 1300 York Ave, A1027, New York, NY, 10065, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, New York Presbyterian Hospital-Weill Cornell Medicine, 1300 York Ave, A1027, New York, NY, 10065, USA. cha9043@med.cornell.edu. 3. , New York, NY, USA. cha9043@med.cornell.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Utilization of the robotic platform has become more common in bariatric applications. We aim to show that robotic revisional bariatric surgery (RRBS) can be safely performed in a complex patient population with perioperative outcomes equivalent to laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery (LRBS). METHODS: Retrospective review was conducted of adult patients undergoing laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery (LRBS) or robotic revisional bariatric surgery (RRBS) at our institution from September 2007 to December 2016. Patients undergoing planned two-stage bariatric procedures were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 84 patients who underwent LRBS (n = 66) or RRBS (n = 18) were included. The index operation was adjustable gastric banding (AGB) in 39/84 (46%), sleeve gastrectomy (VSG) in 23/84 (27%), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) in 13/84 (16%), and vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) in 9/84 (11%). For patients undergoing conversion from AGB (n = 39), there was no difference in operative time, length of stay, or complications by surgical approach. For patients undergoing conversion from a stapled procedure (n = 45), the robotic approach was associated with a shorter length of stay (5.8 ± 3.3 vs 3.7 ± 1.7 days, p = 0.04) with equivalent operative time and post-operative complications. There were three leaks in the LRBS group and none in the RRBS group (p = 0.36). Major complications occurred in 3/39 (8%) of patients undergoing conversion from AGB and 2/45 (4%) of patients undergoing conversion from a stapled procedure (p = 0.53) with no difference by surgical approach. CONCLUSIONS: RRBS is associated with a shorter length of stay than LRBS in complex procedures and has at least an equivalent safety profile. Long-term follow-up data is needed.
BACKGROUND: Utilization of the robotic platform has become more common in bariatric applications. We aim to show that robotic revisional bariatric surgery (RRBS) can be safely performed in a complex patient population with perioperative outcomes equivalent to laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery (LRBS). METHODS: Retrospective review was conducted of adult patients undergoing laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery (LRBS) or robotic revisional bariatric surgery (RRBS) at our institution from September 2007 to December 2016. Patients undergoing planned two-stage bariatric procedures were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 84 patients who underwent LRBS (n = 66) or RRBS (n = 18) were included. The index operation was adjustable gastric banding (AGB) in 39/84 (46%), sleeve gastrectomy (VSG) in 23/84 (27%), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) in 13/84 (16%), and vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) in 9/84 (11%). For patients undergoing conversion from AGB (n = 39), there was no difference in operative time, length of stay, or complications by surgical approach. For patients undergoing conversion from a stapled procedure (n = 45), the robotic approach was associated with a shorter length of stay (5.8 ± 3.3 vs 3.7 ± 1.7 days, p = 0.04) with equivalent operative time and post-operative complications. There were three leaks in the LRBS group and none in the RRBS group (p = 0.36). Major complications occurred in 3/39 (8%) of patients undergoing conversion from AGB and 2/45 (4%) of patients undergoing conversion from a stapled procedure (p = 0.53) with no difference by surgical approach. CONCLUSIONS:RRBS is associated with a shorter length of stay than LRBS in complex procedures and has at least an equivalent safety profile. Long-term follow-up data is needed.
Authors: Sergio Maeso; Mercedes Reza; Julio A Mayol; Juan A Blasco; Mercedes Guerra; Elena Andradas; María N Plana Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: K Arapis; P Tammaro; L Ribeiro Parenti; A L Pelletier; D Chosidow; M Kousouri; C Magnan; B Hansel; J P Marmuse Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Adham Elmously; Katherine D Gray; Timothy M Ullmann; Thomas J Fahey; Cheguevara Afaneh; Rasa Zarnegar Journal: World J Surg Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Jan Henrik Beckmann; Anne-Sophie Mehdorn; Jan-Niclas Kersebaum; Witigo von Schönfels; Terbish Taivankhuu; Matthias Laudes; Jan-Hendrik Egberts; Thomas Becker Journal: Visc Med Date: 2020-05-15
Authors: Raelina S Howell; Helen H Liu; Harika Boinpally; Meredith Akerman; Elizabeth Carruthers; Barbara M Brathwaite; Patrizio Petrone; Collin E M Brathwaite Journal: JSLS Date: 2021 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 2.172