Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30128823›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2019

Robotic versus laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a MBSAQIP analysis.

Reza Fazl Alizadeh, Shiri Li, Colette S Inaba, Andreea I Dinicu, Marcelo W Hinojosa, Brian R Smith, Michael J Stamos, Ninh T Nguyen

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Use of Lower Staple Heights in Robotic Sleeve Gastrectomy: National Trends and Impact on Outcomes.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025
    Article
  7. Surgical Strategies for the Management of Obesity.Methodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. ROBOTIC VERSUS LAPAROSCOPIC ROUX-EN-Y-GASTRIC BYPASS: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY IN A SINGLE CENTER.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Reza Fazl AlizadehDepartment of Surgery, University of California, Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA, USA.
Shiri LiDepartment of Surgery, University of California, Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA, USA.
Colette S InabaDepartment of Surgery, University of California, Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA, USA.
Andreea I DinicuDepartment of Surgery, University of California, Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA, USA.
Marcelo W HinojosaDepartment of Surgery, University of California, Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA, USA.
Brian R SmithDepartment of Surgery, University of California, Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA, USA.
Michael J StamosDepartment of Surgery, University of California, Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA, USA.
Ninh T NguyenDepartment of Surgery, University of California, Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA, USA. ninhn@uci.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy has become the procedure of choice for the treatment of morbid obesity. Robotic sleeve gastrectomy is an alternative surgical option, but its utilization has been low. The aim of this study was to evaluate the contemporary outcomes of robotic sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) versus laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) using a national database from accredited bariatric centers. STUDY

designUsing the 2015 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database, clinical data for patients who underwent RSG or LSG were examined. Emergent and revisional cases were excluded. A multivariate logistic regression model was utilized to compare the outcomes between RSG and LSG.

resultsA total of 75,079 patients underwent sleeve gastrectomy with 70,298 (93.6%) LSG and 4781 (6.4%) RSG. Preoperative sleep apnea and hypoalbumenia were significantly higher in the RSG group (P < 0.01). Mean length of stay was similar between RSG and LSG (1.8 ± 2.0 vs. 1.7 ± 2.0 days, P = 0.17). Operative time was longer in the RSG group (102 ± 43 vs. 74 ± 36 min, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality between the RSG versus LSG group (0.02% vs. 0.01%, AOR 0.85; 95% CI 0.11-6.46, P = 0.88). However, RSG was associated with higher serious morbidity (1.1% vs. 0.8%, AOR 1.40; 95% CI 1.05-1.86, P < 0.01), higher leak rate (1.5% vs. 0.5%, AOR 3.14; 95% CI 2.65-4.42, P < 0.01), and higher surgical site infection rate (0.7% vs. 0.4%, AOR 1.55; 95% CI 1.08-2.23, P = 0.01).

conclusionsRobotic sleeve gastrectomy has longer operative time and is associated with higher postoperative morbidity including leak and surgical site infections. Laparoscopy should continue to be the surgical approach of choice for sleeve gastrectomy.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultBariatric SurgeryDatabases, FactualFemaleGastrectomyHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedObesity, MorbidOperative TimeQuality ImprovementSurgical Wound InfectionTreatment OutcomeBariatric surgeryLaparoscopic sleeve gastrectomyMBSAQIPRobotic sleeve gastrectomyShort-term outcomes

Identifiers

PMID30128823

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.