Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Apr;34(4):1573-1584.
doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-06917-5. Epub 2019 Jun 17.

Outcomes in conventional laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted revisional bariatric surgery: a retrospective, case-controlled study of the MBSAQIP database

Edwin Acevedo  1 , Michael Mazzei  1 , Huaqing Zhao  2 , Xiaoning Lu  2 , Michael A Edwards  3   4
Affiliations

Outcomes in conventional laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted revisional bariatric surgery: a retrospective, case-controlled study of the MBSAQIP database

Edwin Acevedo et al. Surg Endosc. 2020 Apr.

Abstract

Introduction: Revisional bariatric surgery is being increasingly performed and is associated with higher operative risks. Optimal techniques to minimize complications remain controversial. Here, we report a retrospective review of the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) Participant User Files (PUF) database, comparing outcomes between revision RBS and LBS.

Methods: The 2015 and 2016 MBSAQIP PUF database was retrospectively reviewed. Revision cases were identified using the Revision/Conversion Flag. Selected cases were further stratified by surgical approach. Subgroup analysis of sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass cases was performed. Case-controlled matching (1:1) was performed of the RBS and LBS cohorts, including gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy cohorts separately. Cases and controls were match by demographics, ASA classification, and preoperative comorbidities.

Results: 26,404 revision cases were identified (93.3% LBS, 6.7% RBS). 85.6% were female and 67% white. Mean age and BMI were 48 years and 40.9 kg/m2. 1144 matched RBS and LBS cases were identified. RBS was associated with longer operative duration (p < 0.0001), LOS (p = 0.0002) and a higher rate of ICU admissions (1.3% vs 0.5%, p = 0.05). Aggregate bleeding and leak rates were higher in the RBS cohort. In both gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy cohorts, the robotic-assisted surgery remain associated with longer operative duration (p < 0.0001). In gastric bypass, rates of aggregate leak and bleeding were higher with robotic surgery, while transfusion was higher with laparoscopy. For sleeve gastrectomy cases, reoperation, readmission, intervention, sepsis, organ space SSI, and transfusion were higher with robotic surgery.

Conclusion: In this matched cohort analysis of revision bariatric surgery, both approaches were overall safe. RBS was associated with longer operative duration and higher rates of some complications. Complications were higher in the robotic sleeve cohort. Robotic is likely less cost-effective with no clear patient safety benefit, particularly for sleeve gastrectomy cases.

Keywords: Conventional laparoscopic; Revisional metabolic and bariatric surgery; Robotic-assisted; Roux-en-y gastric bypass; Sleeve gastrectomy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Drs. Edwin Acevedo, Jr., Michael Mazzei, Huaqing Zhao, Michael A. Edwards, and Mr. Xiaoning Lu have no conflicts of interests or financial ties to disclose.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Hjorth S, Naslund I, Andersson-Assarsson JC, et al. Reoperations after bariatric surgery in 26 years of follow-up of the Swedish Obese Subjects study. JAMA Surg. 2019 doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2018.5084. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pinto-Bastos A, Conceição EM, Machado PPP. Re-operative bariatric surgery: a systematic review of the reasons for surgery, medical and weight loss outcomes, relevant behavioral factors. Obes Surg. 2017;27(10):2707–2715. doi: 10.1007/s11695-017-2855-7. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mor A, Keenan E, Portenier D, Torquati A. Case-matched analysis comparing outcomes of revisional versus primary laparoscopic roux-en-y gastric bypass. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(2):548–552. doi: 10.1007/s00464-012-2477-z. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kuzminov A, Palmer AJ, Wilkinson S, Khatsiev B, Venn AJ. Re-operations after secondary bariatric surgery: a systematic review. Obes Surg. 2016;26(9):2237–2247. doi: 10.1007/s11695-016-2252-7. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bindal V, Gonzalez-Heredia R, Elli EF. Outcomes of robot-assisted roux-en-y gastric bypass as a reoperative bariatric procedure. Obes Surg. 2015;25(10):1810–1815. doi: 10.1007/s11695-015-1632-8. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms