BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy has become the procedure of choice for the treatment of morbid obesity. Robotic sleeve gastrectomy is an alternative surgical option, but its utilization has been low. The aim of this study was to evaluate the contemporary outcomes of robotic sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) versus laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) using a national database from accredited bariatric centers. STUDY DESIGN: Using the 2015 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database, clinical data for patients who underwent RSG or LSG were examined. Emergent and revisional cases were excluded. A multivariate logistic regression model was utilized to compare the outcomes between RSG and LSG. RESULTS: A total of 75,079 patients underwent sleeve gastrectomy with 70,298 (93.6%) LSG and 4781 (6.4%) RSG. Preoperative sleep apnea and hypoalbumenia were significantly higher in the RSG group (P < 0.01). Mean length of stay was similar between RSG and LSG (1.8 ± 2.0 vs. 1.7 ± 2.0 days, P = 0.17). Operative time was longer in the RSG group (102 ± 43 vs. 74 ± 36 min, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality between the RSG versus LSG group (0.02% vs. 0.01%, AOR 0.85; 95% CI 0.11-6.46, P = 0.88). However, RSG was associated with higher serious morbidity (1.1% vs. 0.8%, AOR 1.40; 95% CI 1.05-1.86, P < 0.01), higher leak rate (1.5% vs. 0.5%, AOR 3.14; 95% CI 2.65-4.42, P < 0.01), and higher surgical site infection rate (0.7% vs. 0.4%, AOR 1.55; 95% CI 1.08-2.23, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic sleeve gastrectomy has longer operative time and is associated with higher postoperative morbidity including leak and surgical site infections. Laparoscopy should continue to be the surgical approach of choice for sleeve gastrectomy.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy has become the procedure of choice for the treatment of morbid obesity. Robotic sleeve gastrectomy is an alternative surgical option, but its utilization has been low. The aim of this study was to evaluate the contemporary outcomes of robotic sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) versus laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) using a national database from accredited bariatric centers. STUDY DESIGN: Using the 2015 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database, clinical data for patients who underwent RSG or LSG were examined. Emergent and revisional cases were excluded. A multivariate logistic regression model was utilized to compare the outcomes between RSG and LSG. RESULTS: A total of 75,079 patients underwent sleeve gastrectomy with 70,298 (93.6%) LSG and 4781 (6.4%) RSG. Preoperative sleep apnea and hypoalbumenia were significantly higher in the RSG group (P < 0.01). Mean length of stay was similar between RSG and LSG (1.8 ± 2.0 vs. 1.7 ± 2.0 days, P = 0.17). Operative time was longer in the RSG group (102 ± 43 vs. 74 ± 36 min, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality between the RSG versus LSG group (0.02% vs. 0.01%, AOR 0.85; 95% CI 0.11-6.46, P = 0.88). However, RSG was associated with higher serious morbidity (1.1% vs. 0.8%, AOR 1.40; 95% CI 1.05-1.86, P < 0.01), higher leak rate (1.5% vs. 0.5%, AOR 3.14; 95% CI 2.65-4.42, P < 0.01), and higher surgical site infection rate (0.7% vs. 0.4%, AOR 1.55; 95% CI 1.08-2.23, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic sleeve gastrectomy has longer operative time and is associated with higher postoperative morbidity including leak and surgical site infections. Laparoscopy should continue to be the surgical approach of choice for sleeve gastrectomy.
Authors: Brett L Ecker; Richard Maduka; Andre Ramdon; Daniel T Dempsey; Kristoffel R Dumon; Noel N Williams Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2015-05-27 Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Vladimir Schraibman; Antonio L V Macedo; Marina G Epstein; Mayte Y Soares; Gabriel Maccapani; Delcio Matos; Luiz Vicente Rizzo; Suzan M Goldman Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Colette S Inaba; Christina Y Koh; Sarath Sujatha-Bhaskar; Jack P Silva; Yanjun Chen; Danh V Nguyen; Ninh T Nguyen Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2018-03-16 Impact factor: 6.113
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