Benjamin Clapp1, Evan Liggett2, Robert Jones2, Carlos Lodeiro2, Christopher Dodoo2, Alan Tyroch2. 1. Paul L. Foster School of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Science Center, El Paso, Texas. Electronic address: B_clapp@hotmail.com. 2. Paul L. Foster School of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Science Center, El Paso, Texas.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The most common bariatric operation in the United States is sleeve gastrectomy. The second and third most common bariatric operations are gastric bypass and revisional bariatric surgery, respectively. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to assess the differences between laparoscopic revisional weight loss surgery (LRWLS) and robotic revisional weight loss surgery (RRWLS). SETTING: University hospital, United States. METHODS: Data were extracted from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database spanning 2015 to 2016 to look at demographic characteristics, operative time, co-morbidities, and length of stay. Using the specified Current Procedural Terminology codes, patients who underwent bariatric procedures and required a revisional procedure were identified. RESULTS: A total of 354,865 patients were included in this study; 37,917 (11.9%) patients required revision after undergoing a bariatric procedure. Of these revisions, 94.9% (n = 35,988) were LRWLS, and 5.1% (n = 1929) were RRWLS. There were no differences in patient characteristics between the LRWLS and RRWLS groups. There was a significant difference between the RRWLS and the LRWLS groups in operative time, with the RRWLS group taking 167 minutes and the LRWLS group taking 103 minutes (P < .001). There was a statistically significant increase in length of stay for RRWLS, 2.3 days versus 1.7 for LRWLS (P < .005). In terms of postoperative complications, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: RRWLS is as safe as LRWLS in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database. There is an increase in operative times and length of stay for robotic cases.
BACKGROUND: The most common bariatric operation in the United States is sleeve gastrectomy. The second and third most common bariatric operations are gastric bypass and revisional bariatric surgery, respectively. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to assess the differences between laparoscopic revisional weight loss surgery (LRWLS) and robotic revisional weight loss surgery (RRWLS). SETTING: University hospital, United States. METHODS: Data were extracted from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database spanning 2015 to 2016 to look at demographic characteristics, operative time, co-morbidities, and length of stay. Using the specified Current Procedural Terminology codes, patients who underwent bariatric procedures and required a revisional procedure were identified. RESULTS: A total of 354,865 patients were included in this study; 37,917 (11.9%) patients required revision after undergoing a bariatric procedure. Of these revisions, 94.9% (n = 35,988) were LRWLS, and 5.1% (n = 1929) were RRWLS. There were no differences in patient characteristics between the LRWLS and RRWLS groups. There was a significant difference between the RRWLS and the LRWLS groups in operative time, with the RRWLS group taking 167 minutes and the LRWLS group taking 103 minutes (P < .001). There was a statistically significant increase in length of stay for RRWLS, 2.3 days versus 1.7 for LRWLS (P < .005). In terms of postoperative complications, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: RRWLS is as safe as LRWLS in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database. There is an increase in operative times and length of stay for robotic cases.
Keywords:
Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP); Revisional bariatric surgery; Revisional gastric bypass; Revisional sleeve gastrectomy
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: Carolina Vanetta; Nicolás H Dreifuss; Francisco Schlottmann; Alberto Mangano; Antonio Cubisino; Valentina Valle; Carolina Baz; Francesco M Bianco; Chandra Hassan; Antonio Gangemi; Mario A Masrur Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-03-25 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Julia Xie; Nicolas H Dreifuss; Francisco Schlottmann; Antonio Cubisino; Alberto Mangano; Carolina Vanetta; Carolina Baz; Valentina Valle; Francesco M Bianco; Antonio Gangemi; Mario A Masrur Journal: Front Surg Date: 2022-04-01
Authors: Pouya Iranmanesh; John Fam; Thomas Nguyen; David Talarico; Kavita D Chandwani; Kulvinder S Bajwa; Melissa M Felinski; Leon V Katz; Sheilendra S Mehta; Stephan R Myers; Brad E Snyder; Peter A Walker; Todd D Wilson; Angielyn R Rivera; Connie L Klein; Shinil K Shah; Erik B Wilson Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2020-10-07 Impact factor: 4.584