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
. 2022 May;32(5):1539-1545.
doi: 10.1007/s11695-022-05964-7. Epub 2022 Feb 16.

Five Year Trends in the Utilization of Robotic Bariatric Surgery Procedures, United States 2015-2019

Elisa Morales-Marroquin  1   2 , Shreeya Khatiwada  1   2 , Luyu Xie  1   2 , Nestor de la Cruz-Muñoz  3 , Sachin Kukreja  4 , Benjamin Schneider  5 , Faisal G Qureshi  6 , Sarah E Messiah  7   8
Affiliations

Five Year Trends in the Utilization of Robotic Bariatric Surgery Procedures, United States 2015-2019

Elisa Morales-Marroquin et al. Obes Surg. 2022 May.

Abstract

Purpose: Robotic approaches have been steadily replacing laparoscopic approaches in metabolic and bariatric surgeries (MBS); however, their superiority has not been rigorously evaluated. The main goal of the study was to evaluate the 5-year utilization trends of robotic MBS and to compare to laparoscopic outcomes.

Methods: Retrospective analysis of 2015-2019 MBSAQIP data. Kruskal-Wallis test/Wilcoxon and Fisher's exact/chi-square were used to compare continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Generalized linear models were used to compare surgery outcomes.

Results: The use of robotic MBS increased from 6.2% in 2015 to 13.5% in 2019 (N= 775,258). Robotic MBS patients had significantly higher age, BMI, and likelihood of 12 diseases compared to laparoscopic patients. After adjustment, robotic MBS patients showed higher 30-day interventions and 30-day readmissions alongside longer surgery time (26-38 min).

Conclusion: Robotic MBS shows higher intervention and readmission even after controlling for cofounding variables.

Keywords: Laparoscopic bariatric surgery; MBS; Robotic bariatric surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Frequency of metabolic and bariatric surgery procedures, MBSAQIP, 2015–2019. Generated from GLM procedure. Natural orifice transluminal endoscopy. * Denotes significant trend (p <0.05)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Operative time in minutes by metabolic and bariatric surgery approach and procedure. Kruskal-Wallis test. L-SG, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy; R-SG, robotic sleeve gastrectomy; L-RYGB, laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastrectomy; R-RYGB, Roux-en-Y gastrectomy
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Jung MK et al. Robotic bariatric surgery: a general review of the current status. The International Journal of Medical Robotics + Computer Assisted Surgery : MRCAS. 2017;13(4). % 10.1002/rcs.1834. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pernar LIM, Robertson FC, Tavakkoli A, et al. An appraisal of the learning curve in robotic general surgery. Surg Endosc 2017;31(11):4583–96 - PubMed
    1. Tatarian T, Yang J, Wang J, et al. Trends in the utilization and perioperative outcomes of primary robotic bariatric surgery from 2015 to 2018: a study of 46,764 patients from the MBSAQIP data registry. Surg Endosc 2021;35(7):3915–22 - PubMed
    1. Scarritt T, Hsu CH, Maegawa FB, et al. Trends in utilization and perioperative outcomes in robotic-assisted bariatric surgery using the MBSAQIP database: A 4-Year Analysis. Obes Surg 2021;31(2):854–61 - PubMed
    1. Li K, Zou J, Tang J, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Surg 2016;26(12):3031–44 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources