First modified Delphi consensus statement on robotic-assisted da Vinci sleeve gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most commonly performed metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) procedure. Technical considerations related to the performance of SG are well established and reported in the literature but not in relation to robotic-assisted (RA) SG. We report the results of the first modified Delphi consensus-building exercise addressing technical considerations of RA da Vinci (dV) SG. OBJECTIVES: Develop best practices for the performance of robotic-assisted da Vinci sleeve gastrectomy. SETTING: Survey based consensus statement. METHODS: A consensus building committee (CBC) was created comprising 10 experts in the field of RA surgery and MBS based on strict selection criteria. The CBC developed 49 consensus statements which were then shared with 240 experts in RA surgery. Our stopping criterion was stability in responses (≤15%). The consensus cut point was 70%. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 49%. In the first round of voting, there was consensus agreement on 25 statements (51%), consensus disagreement on 14 (28%), and no consensus on the remaining statements (21%). In the second round of voting, we reached agreement on 3 additional statements. Experts recommended the use of the number of pauses generated by the stapler to guide choice of staple height (91.2%) and to upsize the staple height when using buttressing (92%). There was also consensus (81.4%) that the use of the closed staple height of 1.00 mm (white) is acceptable and that stapling of the antrum using a 1.5-mm staple (blue load) is also acceptable (73%). CONCLUSIONS: Collective expert opinion structured through a modified Delphi consensus statement presents a practical guide for surgeons interested in performing dV-SG.

Global benchmarks in primary robotic bariatric surgery redefine quality standards for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Whether the benefits of the robotic platform in bariatric surgery translate into superior surgical outcomes remains unclear. The aim of this retrospective study was to establish the 'best possible' outcomes for robotic bariatric surgery and compare them with the established laparoscopic benchmarks. METHODS: Benchmark cut-offs were established for consecutive primary robotic bariatric surgery patients of 17 centres across four continents (13 expert centres and 4 learning phase centres) using the 75th percentile of the median outcome values until 90 days after surgery. The benchmark patients had no previous laparotomy, diabetes, sleep apnoea, cardiopathy, renal insufficiency, inflammatory bowel disease, immunosuppression, history of thromboembolic events, BMI greater than 50 kg/m2, or age greater than 65 years. RESULTS: A total of 9097 patients were included, who were mainly female (75.5%) and who had a mean(s.d.) age of 44.7(11.5) years and a mean(s.d.) baseline BMI of 44.6(7.7) kg/m2. In expert centres, 13.74% of the 3020 patients who underwent primary robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and 5.9% of the 4078 patients who underwent primary robotic sleeve gastrectomy presented with greater than or equal to one complication within 90 postoperative days. No patient died and 1.1% of patients had adverse events related to the robotic platform. When compared with laparoscopic benchmarks, robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass had lower benchmark cut-offs for hospital stay, postoperative bleeding, and marginal ulceration, but the duration of the operation was 42 min longer. For most surgical outcomes, robotic sleeve gastrectomy outperformed laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with a comparable duration of the operation. In robotic learning phase centres, outcomes were within the established benchmarks only for low-risk robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. CONCLUSION: The newly established benchmarks suggest that robotic bariatric surgery may enhance surgical safety compared with laparoscopic bariatric surgery; however, the duration of the operation for robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is longer.

Improving Operating Room Efficiency of Robotic-Assisted Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Through Standardization.

INTRODUCTION: The use of robotic-assisted (RA) surgery in the field of metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is controversial because of cost concerns and issues related to efficiency. The objective of this study is to evaluate the operating room efficiency in performing RA-MBS prior and after the implementation of a standardized surgical approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All MBS cases entered into our database between October 2017 and October 2022 were collected and analyzed before and after the introduction of the standardized approach (SA). The outcome variables consisted of operation time (OT), turnover time (TT), wheels in-wheels out (WW), and console time (CT). Procedures were divided into Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), sleeve gastrectomy (SG), and revisional bariatric surgery (RBS). RESULTS: For RYGB (n = 185), we found a significant reduction in OT, TT, and WW after SA (129 min vs 139 min; 37 min vs 73 min; 165 min vs 175 min, respectively, p < 0.05). For SG (n = 253), we found a significant reduction in turnover time (TT) after SA. For RBS (n = 201), we also found a significant reduction in OT, TT, WW, and CT after SA ( 157 min vs 177 min; 36 min vs 72 min; 194 min vs 216 min; 119 min vs 134 min, respectively, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Using a standardized surgical approach, we were able to demonstrate improved operation room efficiency as demonstrated by a reduction in operation length, turnover time, and the overall time of the procedure for primary RYGB and revisional procedures and turnover time for primary sleeve procedures.

Outcomes of Staple Line Reinforcement Following Robotic Assisted Sleeve Gastrectomy Based on MBSAQIP Database.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study is to evaluate the outcomes for Staple Line Reinforcement (SLR) in RA-SG based on the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database for 2019. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We selected patients who underwent RA-SG in the MBSAQIP PUF (Public Utility File) for the year 2019 and grouped them based on their SLR status: Oversewing (OS), Buttressing (BR), both OS and BR and neither. Our primary outcomes were bleeding, organ space infection (OSI), and adverse events (AEs), and our secondary outcomes were operation length, hospital length of stay, readmissions, and conversion to open rates. We conducted separate chi square or one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) as appropriate and multivariable direct logistic regression models for the categorical outcomes. RESULTS: We found 115,621 patients with complete data of which there were 16,494 who underwent RA-SG. Our results did not show a statistically significant decrease in incidence of postoperative bleeding for BR and OS (Adjusted OR = 0.782, p = 0.2291 and Adjusted OR of 0.482, p = 0.054 for BR and OS respectively). There was a statistically significant effect for SLR status on operation length, with OS patients having the highest operative times (log-transformed mean = 2.03), followed by both BR + OS patients (log-transformed mean = 1.99). BR patients had the shortest operation length. CONCLUSION: SLR did not result in any significant differences related to bleeding, OSI or AEs following RA-SG according to MBSAQIP for the year 2019. However, OS resulted in significantly longer operative time compared to BR alone.

Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Bariatric Surgery Compared to Standard Laparoscopic Approach Using a Standardized Definition: First Look at the 2020 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Improvement Project (MBSAQIP) Data.

PURPOSE: The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of robotic-assisted (RA-) approach compared to the standard laparoscopic (L-) approach using the 2020 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) registry Public Use File (PUF). Our secondary objective is to establish standards for the reporting of outcomes using PUF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the PUF database (n = 168,568), patients were divided into sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), revisions, and conversions and then analyzed separately. We created balanced covariate through propensity score matching and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW). We also conducted multivariable relative risk regression to confirm our results. RESULTS: For RYGB, the incidence of "transfusion" was significantly lower in the RA-RYGB compared to the L-RYGB. There was no significant difference in the rate of Serious Event Occurrences (SEOs) or rate of intervention at 30 days. For SG, there was a higher rate of "transfusion" in the RA group. Incidence of SEOs was also significantly higher in the RA-group. There was no significant difference in SEOs for conversions; however, revisions had a trend toward a lower rate of SEOs favoring the robotic approach. Operative times were significantly higher for all RA-groups. CONCLUSION: RA- approach in metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) remains controversial because of differences in outcomes. The use of SEOs as reported by MBSAQIP in its semi-annual report can be used as a composite score to assess outcomes while using PUF. Further studies are needed to compare RA- to L- MBS.

Direct medical costs of robotic sleeve gastrectomy compared to laparoscopic approach in a single academic center.

BACKGROUND: The use of the robotic platform in bariatric surgery remains controversial because of lack of level I evidence to support its superiority compared to the laparoscopic approach and because of cost concerns. Recently, an extended use program (EUP) for robotic instruments was also introduced at our institution to help reduce the associated direct medical costs of robotic surgery. OBJECTIVES:  To evaluate the direct medical costs of a robotic sleeve gastrectomy (R-SG) and compare it to a standard laparoscopic approach (L-SG). SETTING:  Academic, tertiary care center. METHODS:  The analysis included the last 50 R-SG performed at our institution between June 1st 2019 and October 31st 2020. Those cases were compared to the L-SG cases (29 cases) performed in the same time period. All revisions or conversions were then excluded which resulted in a total of 74 primary SG (R-SG = 45 and L-SG = 29). Direct medical costs included operating room cost, instrument cost, miscellaneous cost, and cost of hospital stay. Direct cost data was generated using the StrataJazz reporting module, which is fed daily from EPIC, our electronic health record system. Patients who underwent a primary SG or a primary SG with a concomitant Paraesophageal Hernia Repair (PEH) were analyzed separately using Mann-Whitney rank sum tests and Student's t tests. An additional analysis and subanalysis of the groups was also performed after applying the potential savings of the Extended Use Program (EUP). RESULTS:  Overall, the direct medical cost of R-SG was comparable to L-SG ($6330.77 vs $6804.12 respectively, p = 0.07). The direct medical cost of patients undergoing SG alone without PEH was significantly lower in the R-group compared to the L-group ($5927.08 vs $6508.01, respectively, p = 0.04). When applying the EUP savings to our data, the predicted direct medical cost of R-SG becomes significantly lower than L-SG ($6145.77 vs $6804.12 respectively, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION:  At our academic medical center, we found no difference in direct medical costs between R-SG and L-SG. With the application of the EUP, direct medical costs of R-SG can be significantly lowered compared to L-SG. It is important to consider that cost data are largely dependent upon the academic medical center of interest, and surgeons need to collect their own cost data to evaluate whether robotic surgery is feasible at their institution.

Current Trends in the Utilization of a Robotic Approach in the Field of Bariatric Surgery.

PURPOSE: The utilization rate of robotic surgery for bariatric procedures is not well-described. Our study identified the proportion of metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) procedures in the United States between 2015 and 2020 performed using a robotic (R-) or laparoscopic (L-) approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A descriptive analysis of the 2015-2020 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) Participant User Data File (PUF) datasets was performed. The primary outcome was (1) surgical cases performed annually and (2) proportion of cases performed using a R- or L- approach. Analysis was done separately for sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD-DS), and revisional bariatric surgery (RBS). Statistical analysis consisted of means and proportions, fold difference, annual slope, and Student's t tests or chi-square tests as appropriate, with statistical significance set to p < .05. RESULTS: A total of 1,135, 214 procedures were captured between 2015 and 2020. R-RYGB increased from 2554 to 6198 (6.8% to 16.7%), R-SG increased from 5229 to 17,063 (6.0% to 17.2%), R-RBS increased from 993 to 3386 (4.7% to 17.4%), and R-BPD-DS increased from 221 to 393 (22.0% to 28.4%). The greatest annual increase was observed among R-RBS and R-SG (3.70-fold difference; slope 2.4% per year and 2.87-fold difference; slope 2.2% per year, respectively). CONCLUSION: There is a nationwide increase in the utilization of a R- approach in bariatric surgery. There are concerns related to the potential increase in healthcare expenditures related to robotics. Further studies are needed to establish key performance indicators along with guidelines for training, adoption and utilization of a R- approach.

Literature review on antiobesity medication use for metabolic and bariatric surgery patients from the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Clinical Issues Committee.

The following literature search is in response to inquiries made to the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) regarding antiobesity medication (AOM) use in patients who are having or have already had metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS). These recommendations are based on current clinical knowledge, expert opinion, and published peer-reviewed scientific evidence available at this time. This paper is not intended to establish a local, regional, or national standard of care. The paper will be revised in the future as additional evidence becomes available.

Anaphylactic Food Allergy After Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass.

The prevalence of obesity in the United States is projected to increase as high as 85% by 2030. Weight loss is associated with improved morbidity and mortality outcomes. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is an effective procedure recommended for individuals with morbid obesity for weight loss. We report the case of a patient who developed worsening food allergic reactions after RYGB surgery that progressed to an anaphylactic reaction. A 36-year-old female developed an anaphylactic reaction to an ingredient in guacamole eight years after RYGB surgery. Prior to the surgery, she had symptoms consistent with oral allergy syndrome. After the gastric bypass, however, she experienced worsening symptoms. On this occasion, she developed throat tightness prompting a visit to the emergency department where she required emergent intubation for airway protection. Blood testing to assess for an immunoglobin E-mediated allergy to common foods was negative. Despite the negative test, the allergist maintained a high suspicion for the progression of food-pollen syndrome following gastric bypass. Disruption of protein digestion from stomach bypass surgery may result in dietary proteins large enough to elicit immune responses being presented to the immune-rich intestinal mucosa. Additional consideration should be given to patients with a preexisting history of food allergic reactions undergoing RGYB surgery.

Assessment and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease following bariatric surgery.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common disease in patients with obesity. The incidence of de novo GERD and the effect of bariatric surgery on patients with pre-existing GERD remain controversial. Management of GERD following bariatric surgery is complicated and can range from medical therapy to non-invasive endoscopic options to invasive surgical options. To address these issues, we performed a systematic review of the literature on the incidence of GERD and the various modalities of managing GERD in patients following bariatric surgery. Given the increased number of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) procedures being performed and the high incidence of GERD following LSG, bariatric surgeons should be familiar with the options available to manage GERD following LSG as well as other bariatric procedures.

RETRACTED: Robotic surgery results in better outcomes following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program analysis for the years 2015-2018.

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal). This article has been retracted in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Retraction Guidelines because of the author's (Maher el Chaar) failure to comply with SOARD guidelines for appropriate disclosure of conflict of interest with industry as well as flawed research design and analytical errors that resulted in biased conclusions considered to be misleading to patients and readers.

Outcomes of robotic surgery in revisional bariatric cases: a propensity score-matched analysis of the MBSAQIP registry.

In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the number of Revisional Bariatric Surgery (RBS) cases performed to address complications and weight recidivism. The use of the da Vinci robotic platform, considered controversial by many, may offer advantages in RBS. The objective of our study is to compare the outcomes of Robotic RBS (R-RBS) to Laparoscopic RBS (L-RBS). Using the 2015-2017 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database, we selected all RBS and we matched R-RBS to L-RBS using a propensity score matching system to create balanced groups. Our primary outcomes were 30-day Serious Adverse Events (SAE), 30-day Organ Specific Infection (OSI), 30-day reoperation and 30-day interventions. Our secondary outcomes included length of operation and 30-day readmission. We conducted separate Mann-Whitney rank sums tests or chi-square tests and Fisher exact test. R-RBS and L-RBS included 220 patients each. The overall incidence of 30-day SAEs, 30-day OSIs, 30-day reoperations, 30-day interventions were lower for R-RBS (6.4%, 0.9%, 2.7% and 2.3%, respectively) compared L-RBS (7.7%, 1.4%, 3.6% and 3.6%, respectively). Subgroup analysis showed that R-RBS had a lower rate of complications for the Gastric Bypass procedure but not for Sleeve gastrectomy cases. However, 30-day readmission was higher for R-RBS compared to L-RBS (9.1% vs 6.4% respectively). None of the analyses reached statistical significance. R-RBS took significantly longer compared to L-RBS (169 min vs 138 min, p < 0.05). Our study shows that R-RBS has lower complication rate albeit non-significant as compared to L-RBS.

Thirty-Day Outcomes of Bariatric Surgery in Adolescents: a First Look at the MBSAQIP Database.

INTRODUCTION: Bariatric surgery is the only effective treatment of severe obesity. The number of adolescents undergoing bariatric surgery is increasing. However, bariatric surgery in adolescents is controversial. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of bariatric surgery in adolescents based on the MBSAQIP database (Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Project). METHODS: We analyzed the 2015-2017 MBSAQIP database; patients ≤ 19 years of age were included in our analysis. Primary outcomes were 30-day serious adverse events (SAEs), organ space infection (OSI), re-intervention, and re-operation rates. Secondary outcomes included operation length, hospital stay, and re-admission rates. We conducted separate Mann-Whitney rank sums tests, chi-square, or Fisher's exact tests as appropriate, with p < .05 denoting statistical significance. RESULTS: A total of 1983 adolescent patients were included in our analysis. The average age and BMI were 18.1 and 47.5, respectively. Of adolescent patients, 21.7% underwent laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and 78.3% underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). The 30-day SAE and readmission rates were significantly lower for LSG compared with LRYGB (2.9% and 2.6% vs 6.5% and 5.6%, respectively; p < 0.05). The 30-day reoperation rate was also lower for LSG compared with LRYGB albeit not significant (1.1% and vs 2.3%; p = 0.05). The 30-day intervention rate for LSG was significantly lower, however, compared with LRYGB (1.2% vs 3%; p < 0.05). Compared with adult patients, > 19 years old (n = 353,726), we found no difference in our outcomes. However, adolescents had significantly shorter operation length. CONCLUSION: In adolescents, LSG had fewer SAE, re-intervention, and readmission rates compared with LRYGB. There was no difference in outcomes between adolescents and adults.

Robotic-Assisted Surgery Results in a Shorter Hospital Stay Following Revisional Bariatric Surgery.

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.

Correction to: "Which Factors Correlate with Marginal Ulcer After Surgery for Obesity?"

In the original article, the author names were presented incorrectly; their family names and given names were inverted.