J Cahais1, R M Lupinacci2, O Oberlin2, N Goasguen2, K Zuber3, A Valverde2. 1. Service de Chirurgie Digestive, Groupe Hospitalier Diaconesses Croix Saint-Simon, 125, rue d'Avron, 75020, Paris, France. jcahais@hopital-dcss.org. 2. Service de Chirurgie Digestive, Groupe Hospitalier Diaconesses Croix Saint-Simon, 125, rue d'Avron, 75020, Paris, France. 3. Research and Biostatistics Unit, Fondation Rothschild Hospital, Paris, France.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although several studies have compared totally robot-assisted gastric bypass (RA-GB) to laparoscopic gastric bypass (L-GB), the clinical benefit of the robotic approach remains unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared perioperative outcomes of 82 consecutive patients undergoing RA-GB between 2013 and 2016 to 169 consecutive patients having undergone L-GB between 2009 and 2016. Secondary endpoints included duration of hospitalization, readmission rate, weight loss at 1 year, and the learning curve of RA-GB, assessed by operation times and complication rates. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between groups concerning age (43.5 ± 11.2 vs. 42.2 ± 12.4 years), body mass index (42.4 ± 5.0 vs. 43.6 ± 7.2 kg/m2), or comorbidities. The rate of revision surgery was higher in L-GB group without reaching statistical significance. No statistically significant difference was observed for duration of operation (134 ± 35 vs. 135 ± 37 min), readmission rate at 90 days (4.9% vs. 8.9%), or percentage of excess weight loss at 1 year (RA-GB vs. L-GB) (76.8% ± 20.5 vs. 73.1% ± 23.5). There were fewer statistically significant complications overall in RA-GB (9.8% vs. 21.9%, p = 0.019). Median duration of hospital stay was shorter for RA-GB (3 vs. 4 days, p < 0.0001). The mean duration of operation for RA-GB decreased from 153 min in 2014 to 122 min in 2016; p = 0.004. CONCLUSION: In our experience, the robotic approach for gastric bypass was associated with fewer postoperative complications compared to traditional laparoscopic gastric bypass. Cost increment associated with RA-GB remains an important drawback that hampers its widespread.
INTRODUCTION: Although several studies have compared totally robot-assisted gastric bypass (RA-GB) to laparoscopic gastric bypass (L-GB), the clinical benefit of the robotic approach remains unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared perioperative outcomes of 82 consecutive patients undergoing RA-GB between 2013 and 2016 to 169 consecutive patients having undergone L-GB between 2009 and 2016. Secondary endpoints included duration of hospitalization, readmission rate, weight loss at 1 year, and the learning curve of RA-GB, assessed by operation times and complication rates. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between groups concerning age (43.5 ± 11.2 vs. 42.2 ± 12.4 years), body mass index (42.4 ± 5.0 vs. 43.6 ± 7.2 kg/m2), or comorbidities. The rate of revision surgery was higher in L-GB group without reaching statistical significance. No statistically significant difference was observed for duration of operation (134 ± 35 vs. 135 ± 37 min), readmission rate at 90 days (4.9% vs. 8.9%), or percentage of excess weight loss at 1 year (RA-GB vs. L-GB) (76.8% ± 20.5 vs. 73.1% ± 23.5). There were fewer statistically significant complications overall in RA-GB (9.8% vs. 21.9%, p = 0.019). Median duration of hospital stay was shorter for RA-GB (3 vs. 4 days, p < 0.0001). The mean duration of operation for RA-GB decreased from 153 min in 2014 to 122 min in 2016; p = 0.004. CONCLUSION: In our experience, the robotic approach for gastric bypass was associated with fewer postoperative complications compared to traditional laparoscopic gastric bypass. Cost increment associated with RA-GB remains an important drawback that hampers its widespread.
Entities:
Keywords:
Gastric bypass; Manual anastomosis; Minimal access surgery; Robot-assisted surgery
Authors: Nicolas C Buchs; Philippe Morel; Dan E Azagury; Minoa Jung; Gilles Chassot; Olivier Huber; Monika E Hagen; François Pugin Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Adam C Celio; Kevin R Kasten; Andrea Schwoerer; Walter J Pories; Konstantinos Spaniolas Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2017-07-18 Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Nancy Puzziferri; Thomas B Roshek; Helen G Mayo; Ryan Gallagher; Steven H Belle; Edward H Livingston Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-09-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Barry R Sanchez; Catherine J Mohr; John M Morton; Bassem Y Safadi; Ramzi S Alami; Myriam J Curet Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2005 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Sukhyung Lee; Brennan Carmody; Luke Wolfe; Eric Demaria; John M Kellum; Harvey Sugerman; James W Maher Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 3.267
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