Keith King1,2, Alvaro Galvez1, Jill Stoltzfus1,3, Leonardo Claros1,3, Maher El Chaar4,5,6. 1. St Luke's University Hospital and Health Network, Bethlehem, PA, USA. 2. Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, USA. 3. Lewis Katz School of Medicine-Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. St Luke's University Hospital and Health Network, Bethlehem, PA, USA. maher.elchaar@sluhn.org. 5. Lewis Katz School of Medicine-Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. maher.elchaar@sluhn.org. 6. St. Luke's University Health Network, 240 Cetronia Road Suite 205, North Allentown, PA, 18104, USA. maher.elchaar@sluhn.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Revisional surgery is rapidly growing within the field of bariatric surgery. The use of robotic assisted surgery, considered controversial by many, may offer advantages in revisional bariatric surgery (RBS). There are few studies comparing laparoscopic and robotic-assisted RBS. The aim of this study is to compare the safety and outcome of laparoscopic and robotic RBS in a single accredited center. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data collected prospectively on patients undergoing either laparoscopic (L-RBS) or robotic (R-RBS) RBS between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2019 was performed. The primary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), 30-day major and minor complication rates, readmission rates, and mortality rates. RESULTS: A total of 167 patients were included in our analysis. Fifty-two patients underwent R-RBS (31%), and 115 underwent L-RBS (69%). Thirty-day major and minor complication rates for R-RBS and L-RBS were 1.9% and 5.8% vs 5.2% and 5.2%, respectively (p > .05). There was no difference in readmission rates (3.8% vs 8.7%, p > 0.05) or intraoperative blood loss (35.5 mL vs 37.4 mL, p > .05) between R-RBS and L-RBS. R-RBS resulted in a shorter length of stay when compared with L-RBS (40.2 h vs 62.6 h, p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: R-RBS has a decreased, albeit non-significant, rate of 30-day major complications with no difference in minor complications, readmission rates, or intraoperative blood loss when compared with L-RBS. R-RBS resulted in a decreased length of stay when compared with L-RBS. Randomized clinical trials are needed to better elucidate our findings.
BACKGROUND: Revisional surgery is rapidly growing within the field of bariatric surgery. The use of robotic assisted surgery, considered controversial by many, may offer advantages in revisional bariatric surgery (RBS). There are few studies comparing laparoscopic and robotic-assisted RBS. The aim of this study is to compare the safety and outcome of laparoscopic and robotic RBS in a single accredited center. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data collected prospectively on patients undergoing either laparoscopic (L-RBS) or robotic (R-RBS) RBS between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2019 was performed. The primary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), 30-day major and minor complication rates, readmission rates, and mortality rates. RESULTS: A total of 167 patients were included in our analysis. Fifty-two patients underwent R-RBS (31%), and 115 underwent L-RBS (69%). Thirty-day major and minor complication rates for R-RBS and L-RBS were 1.9% and 5.8% vs 5.2% and 5.2%, respectively (p > .05). There was no difference in readmission rates (3.8% vs 8.7%, p > 0.05) or intraoperative blood loss (35.5 mL vs 37.4 mL, p > .05) between R-RBS and L-RBS. R-RBS resulted in a shorter length of stay when compared with L-RBS (40.2 h vs 62.6 h, p < .05). CONCLUSIONS:R-RBS has a decreased, albeit non-significant, rate of 30-day major complications with no difference in minor complications, readmission rates, or intraoperative blood loss when compared with L-RBS. R-RBS resulted in a decreased length of stay when compared with L-RBS. Randomized clinical trials are needed to better elucidate our findings.
Authors: Maria Vittoria Bertoni; Michele Marengo; Fabio Garofalo; Francesco Volontè; Davide La Regina; Markus Gass; Francesco Mongelli Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2021-08-19 Impact factor: 3.479
Authors: Tristan Seton; Mark Mahan; James Dove; Hugo Villanueva; Vladan Obradovic; Alexandra Falvo; Ryan Horsley; Anthony Petrick; David M Parker Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2022-10-20 Impact factor: 3.479
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