Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Outcomes in conventional laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted primary bariatric surgery: a retrospective, case-controlled study of the MBSAQIP database.
Acevedo, Edwin; Mazzei, Michael; Zhao, Huaqing; Lu, Xiaoning; Soans, Rohit; Edwards, Michael A.
Afiliação
  • Acevedo E; Department of Surgery, Division of Bariatric and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
  • Mazzei M; Department of Surgery, Division of Bariatric and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
  • Zhao H; Department of Clinical Sciences, Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
  • Lu X; Department of Clinical Sciences, Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
  • Soans R; Department of Surgery, Division of Bariatric and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
  • Edwards MA; Department of General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Rd. S, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA. edwards.michael@mayo.edu.
Surg Endosc ; 34(3): 1353-1365, 2020 03.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31209608
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

Robotic-assisted bariatric surgery is increasingly performed. There remains controversy about the overall benefit of robotic-assisted (RBS) compared to conventional laparoscopic (LBS) bariatric surgery. In this study, we used a large national risk-stratified bariatric clinical database to compare outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic gastric bypass (RNYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG).

METHODS:

A retrospective analysis of the 2015 and 2016 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) Participant Use Data File (PUF) was performed. Primary robotic and laparoscopic RYNGB and SG were analyzed. Descriptive analysis was performed of the unmatched cohorts, followed by 13 case-controlled matching. Cases and controls were matched by patient demographics and pre-operative comorbidities, and peri-operative outcomes compared.

RESULTS:

77,991 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RnYGB) (7.5% robotic-assisted) and 189,503 SG (6.8% robotic-assisted) cases were identified. Operative length was significantly higher in both the robotic-assisted RnYGB and SG cohorts (p < 0.0001). Outcomes were similar between the robotic-assisted and laparoscopic RnYGB cohorts, except a lower mortality rate (p = 0.05), transfusion requirement (p = 0.005), aggregate bleeding (p = 0.04), and surgical site infections (SSI) (p = 0.006) in the robotic-assisted cohort. Outcomes were also similar between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic SG, except for a longer length of stay (p < 0.0001) and higher rates of conversion (p < 0.0001), 30-day intervention (p = 0.01), operative drain present (p < 0.0001), sepsis (p = 0.01), and organ space SSI (p = 0.0002) in the robotic cohort. Bleeding was lower in the robotic SG cohort and mortality was similar.

CONCLUSION:

Both robotic-assisted and laparoscopic RnYGB and SG are overall very safe. Robotic-assisted gastric bypass is associated with a lower mortality and morbidity; however, a clear benefit for robotic-assisted SG compared to laparoscopic SG was not seen. Given the longer operative and hospital duration, robotic SG is not cost-effective.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Laparoscopia / Cirurgia Bariátrica / Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Robóticos Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Laparoscopia / Cirurgia Bariátrica / Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Robóticos Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article