Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30225604›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2019

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy: a propensity score-matched comparative analysis using the 2015-2016 MBSAQIP database.

Raul Sebastian, Melanie H Howell, Kai-Hua Chang, Gina Adrales, Thomas Magnuson, Michael Schweitzer, Hien 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 45 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Evaluation of patients on immunosuppressants undergoing sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, and duodenal switch: analysis of 19,414 patients.Surgery for obesity and related diseases : official journal of the American Society for Bariatric Surgery · 2025
    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

7 authors.

Raul SebastianDepartment of Surgery, The George Washington University Hospital, 900 23rd St NW, Washington, DC, 20037, USA. rsebast2@gwu.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-4486-4444
Melanie H HowellDepartment of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Kai-Hua ChangDepartment of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Gina AdralesDepartment of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Thomas MagnusonDepartment of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Michael SchweitzerDepartment of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Hien NguyenDepartment of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobotic-assisted bariatric surgery is part of the armamentarium in many bariatric centers. However, limited data correlate the robotic benefits to with clinical outcomes. This study compares 30-day outcomes between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic procedures for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG).

methodsUsing the 2015-2016 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database, patients between18- and 65-year-old were included. To adjust for potential confounders, 1:1 propensity-score matching (PSM) was performed using 22 preoperative characteristics. Second PSM analysis was performed adding operative time and conversion rate.

results269,923 patients underwent SG (n = 190,494) or RYGB (n = 79,429). The operative time was significantly longer in the Robotic-assisted compared to laparoscopic approach either for SG (102.58 ± 46 vs. 73.38 ± 36; P < 0.001) or for RYGB (158.29 ± 65 vs. 120.17 ± 56; P < 0.001). In the SG cohort (12,877 matched cases), the robotic approach showed significant reduction of postoperative bleeding (0.16% vs. 0.43%; P < 0.001) and strictures (0.19% vs. 0.33%; P = 0.04) with similar results in the other 30-day outcomes in both analyses. Similarly, for the RYGB cohort (5780 matched cases), the robotic approach showed significantly fewer requirements for blood transfusions (0.64% vs. 1.16%; P = 0.004) with no statistically different results for the other's outcomes. Conversely, when adding operative time and conversion rate to the PSM analysis, the robotic platform showed significantly shorter length of stay (2.12 ± 1.9 vs. 2.30 ± 3.1 days; P < 0.001), reduction of anastomotic leak (0.52% vs. 0.92%; P = 0.01), renal complications (0.16% vs. 0.38%; P = 0.004), and venous thromboembolism (0.24% vs. 0.52%; P = 0.02).

conclusionsOur findings show that postoperative bleeding and blood transfusion are significantly reduced with the robotic platform, and after correcting for all factors including operative time, the robotic-assisted approach is associated with better postoperative outcomes especially for RYGB.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedBariatric SurgeryDatabases, FactualFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGastrectomyGastric BypassHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedObesity, MorbidPropensity ScoreQuality ImprovementBariatric surgeryMinimally invasive surgeryRobotic bariatric surgeryRobotic gastric bypassRobotic sleeve gastrectomy

Identifiers

PMID30225604

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.