Nicolas H Dreifuss1, Alberto Mangano2, Chandra Hassan2, Mario A Masrur2. 1. Division of General, Minimally Invasive, and Robotic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, 820 S Wood Street, Rm 611, Clinical Sciences North, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. nicolashdreifuss@gmail.com. 2. Division of General, Minimally Invasive, and Robotic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, 820 S Wood Street, Rm 611, Clinical Sciences North, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The number of bariatric revisional procedures is growing. Scarce evidence is available regarding the role and postoperative outcomes of robotic-assisted revisional bariatric surgery (RRBS). The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and postoperative outcomes of RRBS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of patients who underwent RRBS between 2012 and 2019 was performed. Primary outcomes of interest were 30-day major morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay (LOS), urgent reoperation rates, and percentage of total weight loss (%TWL). RESULTS: RRBS was performed in 76 patients; among these 60 (78.9%) underwent conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (C-RYGB). Failed weight loss (76%) and gastroesophageal reflux (9.2%) were the main indications for revision. Primary bariatric procedures included gastric band (LAGB) (50%), sleeve gastrectomy (SG) (40.8%), and RYGB (6.6%). Major morbidity and mortality rates were 3.9% and 1.3%, respectively. Mean LOS was 2.1 days, and 3 patients (3.9%) required urgent reoperation. The %TWL at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months was 10.2%, 16.6%, 18.3%, and 22.4% respectively. Comparative analysis of C-RYGB after failed LAGB and SG showed similar morbidity. Higher readmission rates (SG: 22.2% vs. LAGB: 0%, p = 0.007) and lower %EWL at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months were found in C-RYGB after SG. CONCLUSION: This is one of the largest single-center series of RRBS published in the literature; the data indicate that robotic approach for revisional bariatric surgery is safe and helps achieving further weight loss. RRBS outcomes might be influenced by the primary procedure.
PURPOSE: The number of bariatric revisional procedures is growing. Scarce evidence is available regarding the role and postoperative outcomes of robotic-assisted revisional bariatric surgery (RRBS). The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and postoperative outcomes of RRBS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of patients who underwent RRBS between 2012 and 2019 was performed. Primary outcomes of interest were 30-day major morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay (LOS), urgent reoperation rates, and percentage of total weight loss (%TWL). RESULTS: RRBS was performed in 76 patients; among these 60 (78.9%) underwent conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (C-RYGB). Failed weight loss (76%) and gastroesophageal reflux (9.2%) were the main indications for revision. Primary bariatric procedures included gastric band (LAGB) (50%), sleeve gastrectomy (SG) (40.8%), and RYGB (6.6%). Major morbidity and mortality rates were 3.9% and 1.3%, respectively. Mean LOS was 2.1 days, and 3 patients (3.9%) required urgent reoperation. The %TWL at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months was 10.2%, 16.6%, 18.3%, and 22.4% respectively. Comparative analysis of C-RYGB after failed LAGB and SG showed similar morbidity. Higher readmission rates (SG: 22.2% vs. LAGB: 0%, p = 0.007) and lower %EWL at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months were found in C-RYGB after SG. CONCLUSION: This is one of the largest single-center series of RRBS published in the literature; the data indicate that robotic approach for revisional bariatric surgery is safe and helps achieving further weight loss. RRBS outcomes might be influenced by the primary procedure.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bariatrics; Revisional surgery; Robotic bariatric surgery; Robotic surgery
Authors: Ann Y Chung; Paula D Strassle; Francisco Schlottmann; Marco G Patti; Meredith C Duke; Timothy M Farrell Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2019-04-22 Impact factor: 3.452
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: Francisco Schlottmann; Martin M Galvarini; Nicolás H Dreifuss; Francisco Laxague; Rudolf Buxhoeveden; Verónica Gorodner Journal: J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A Date: 2018-07-13 Impact factor: 1.878
Authors: Paul E O'Brien; Annemarie Hindle; Leah Brennan; Stewart Skinner; Paul Burton; Andrew Smith; Gary Crosthwaite; Wendy Brown Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 4.129
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: 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