Marlon Pastrana1, Jill Stoltzfus1, Leonardo Claros1, Maher El Chaar2. 1. St Luke's University Hospital and Health Network, Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Allentown, Pennsylvania. 2. St Luke's University Hospital and Health Network, Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Allentown, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: Maher.Elchaar@sluhn.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery in the super-obese (SO) patient population represents a challenge. Although the robotic platform is increasingly used for these patients, there are limited data on outcomes compared with conventional laparoscopy. OBJECTIVE: Our study compared the safety and short-term outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic platforms for SO patients compared with morbidly obese patients based on the 2015 to 2017 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database. SETTING: University Hospital, United States. METHODS: We evaluated all primary robotic and laparoscopic cases and extracted 30-day outcomes in patients with body mass index <50 and ≤50 kg/m2. For our primary analysis, we used the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method with surgery type Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) versus sleeve gastrectomy (SG) as the stratification variable to determine the association between body mass index categories and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 355,278 patients were included in our analysis. For the robotic RYGB (R-RYGB) group (n = 6645) and R-SG (n = 15,984) there were 1674 SO patients (25.2%) and 3688 SO patients (23.1%), respectively.For the laparoscopic RYGB (LRYGB) group (n = 95,374) and LSG group (n = 237,275), there were 24,991 (26.2%) and 51,524 SO patients (21.7%), respectively. The incidence of serious adverse events in SO patients for R-RYGB and LRYGB groups was 7.6% versus 7.2% (P > .05) and 4% versus 3.5% (P > .05) for R-SG and L-SG, respectively. The incidence of organ space infection in SO patients for R-RYGB and LRYGB groups was .5% versus .4% (P > .05) and .4% versus .2% (P < .05) for R-SG and LSG, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on 2015 to 2017 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program data, we found no difference in outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic approaches in SO patients. There was a higher incidence of serious adverse events in SO patients compared with morbidly obese patients for both approaches.
BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery in the super-obese (SO) patient population represents a challenge. Although the robotic platform is increasingly used for these patients, there are limited data on outcomes compared with conventional laparoscopy. OBJECTIVE: Our study compared the safety and short-term outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic platforms for SO patients compared with morbidly obesepatients based on the 2015 to 2017 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database. SETTING: University Hospital, United States. METHODS: We evaluated all primary robotic and laparoscopic cases and extracted 30-day outcomes in patients with body mass index <50 and ≤50 kg/m2. For our primary analysis, we used the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method with surgery type Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) versus sleeve gastrectomy (SG) as the stratification variable to determine the association between body mass index categories and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 355,278 patients were included in our analysis. For the robotic RYGB (R-RYGB) group (n = 6645) and R-SG (n = 15,984) there were 1674 SO patients (25.2%) and 3688 SO patients (23.1%), respectively.For the laparoscopic RYGB (LRYGB) group (n = 95,374) and LSG group (n = 237,275), there were 24,991 (26.2%) and 51,524 SO patients (21.7%), respectively. The incidence of serious adverse events in SO patients for R-RYGB and LRYGB groups was 7.6% versus 7.2% (P > .05) and 4% versus 3.5% (P > .05) for R-SG and L-SG, respectively. The incidence of organ space infection in SO patients for R-RYGB and LRYGB groups was .5% versus .4% (P > .05) and .4% versus .2% (P < .05) for R-SG and LSG, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on 2015 to 2017 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program data, we found no difference in outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic approaches in SO patients. There was a higher incidence of serious adverse events in SO patients compared with morbidly obesepatients for both approaches.