Revisional Robotic Bariatric Surgery. Largest Single Centre Prospective Cohort Study and Review of the Literature.

Introduction: Robotic bariatric surgery (RBS) has seen a surge in popularity in recent years, yet questions persist about its utility concerning postoperative complications, costs, and technical aspects. RBS, while increasing in number, presents a greater technical challenge associated with more post-operative complications compared to primary bariatric surgery. In this study, we present our single institution experience and review the literature to assess the value of robotic revisional surgery. Material and Method: The retrospective review involved 42 patients (31 females, 11 males) who underwent various procedures, with the most frequent being the conversion of sleeve gastrectomy to gastric bypass (n=30). Encouragingly, no leaks or severe complications were identified. Furthermore, a systematic review indicated comparable outcomes, with decreased complication rates favoring robotic revisional surgery. Results: In direct comparison to standard laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery, revisional robotic surgery demonstrated superior results in terms of efficacy, safety, and reduced hospital stay. However, rates of mortality, morbidity, and reintervention did not significantly differ between the two approaches. Conclusions: Considering these findings, we advocate for surgeons to acquire proficiency in the robotic technique, as part of the broader process of democratization and standardization of bariatric surgery. Embracing revisional robotic bariatric surgery can lead to improved patient outcomes, and its wider implementation may lead to enhanced surgical care and patient satisfaction in the field of bariatric procedures.

Robotic Revisional Experience. Single Centre Prospective Cohort Study and Review of the Literature.

Background: Robotic bariatric surgery (RBS) has increased in recent years. Many doubts continue to exist regarding its utility in terms of postoperative complications, costs and technical aspects. RBS has increased its number and shows a more technical challenge associated with more post-operative complications compared to primary bariatric surgery. We herein present a single institution experience and review to describe its utility in revisional surgery. Methods: A retrospective review of our experience and a review of the literature has been conducted to evaluate the impact of robotic revisional surgery in the bariatric field. Results: A total of 17 patients (5 female and 12 male) were operated on. Most frequent surgery was conversion of sleeve gastrectomy to gastric bypass (n=9). No leaks were found nor severe complications. A systematic review showed similar results including a decreased number for complications when performing robotic revisional surgery. Conclusions: Revisional robotic surgery shows better results compared to standard laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery in terms of efficacy, safety and hospital stay. No differences were seen in rates of mortality, morbidity and reintervention between both approaches. We encourage surgeons to learn to perform the robotic technique as part of the process of democratization and standardization of bariatric surgery.

Single-port transumbilical laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A prospective randomised comparison of clinical results of 140 cases.

INTRODUCTION: A novel single port access (SPA) cholecystectomy approach is described in this study. We have designed a randomised comparative study in order to elucidate any possible differences between the standard treatment and this novel technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between July 2009 and March 2010, 140 adult patients with gallbladder pathologies were enrolled in this multicentre study. Two surgeons (RV and UB) randomised patients to either a standard laparoscopic (SL) approach group or to an SPA cholecystectomy group. Two types of trocars were used for this study: the TriPort™ and the SILS™ Port. Outcomes including blood loss, operative time, complications, length of stay and pain were recorded. RESULTS: There were 69 patients in the SPA group and 71 patients in the SL group. The mean age of the patients was 43.2 (17-77) for the SPA group and 42.6 (19-70) for the SL group. The mean operative time was 63.9 min in the SPA group and 58.4 min in the SL group. For one patient, the SPA procedure was converted to a standard laparoscopic technique and to open approach in the SL group. Complications occurred in eight patients: Five seromas (two in the SPA group) and three hernias (one in the SPA group).The mean hospital stay was 38.5 h in the SPA group and 24.1 h in the SL group. Pain was evaluated and was 2 in the SPA and 2.9 in the SL group, according to the visual analogue scale (VAS) after 24 h (P<0.001). The degree of satisfaction was higher in the SPA group (8.3 versus 6.7). Similar results were found for the aesthetic result (8.8 versus 7.5). (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Single-port transumbilical laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be feasible and safe. When technical difficulties arise, early conversion to a standard laparoscopic technique is advised to avoid serious complications. The SPA approach can be undertaken without the expense of additional operative time and provides patients with minimal scarring. The cosmetic results and the degree of satisfaction appear to be significant for the SPA approach.