ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020
Outcomes in conventional laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted revisional bariatric surgery: a retrospective, case-controlled study of the MBSAQIP database.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05108532 (Polish Revision Obesity Surgery Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Polish Revision Obesity Surgery Study
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 85 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Revisional Bariatric Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis on Perioperative Outcomes.Obesity surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Article
- Robotic-Assisted Bariatric Surgery Compared to Standard Laparoscopy-Utilization Trends, Outcomes, and Operative Times: MBSAQIP Data from 2018 to 2021.Obesity surgery · 2026Article
- Retrospective matched case-control comparison of Totally Robotic Sleeve Gastrectomy (RSG) during the learning curve with Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG): why is operative time different?Updates in surgery · 2025Article
- Scientific Evidence for the Updated Guidelines on Indications for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (IFSO/ASMBS).Obesity surgery · 2024Article
- Robotic bariatric surgery reduces morbidity for revisional gastric bypass when compared to laparoscopic: outcome of 8-year MBSAQIP analysis of over 40,000 cases.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- The Trajectory of Revisional Bariatric Surgery: Open to Laparoscopic to Robotic.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Robotic versus laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2023Article
- Experience of Robotic Complex Revisional Bariatric Surgery in a High-Volume Center.Obesity surgery · 2023Article
- Gastric Bypass Mortality Trends in Racial Cohorts: Are We Improving?Obesity surgery · 2023Article
- Establishing robotic bariatric surgery at an academic tertiary hospital: a learning curve analysis for totally robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
- Is Robotic Revisional Bariatric Surgery Justified? An MBSAQIP Analysis.Obesity surgery · 2022Article
- Predictors of morbidity in revisional bariatric surgery and bariatric emergencies at an MBSAQIP-accredited community hospital.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2022Article
- Advantages of a robotic approach compared with laparoscopy gastrectomy for patients with high visceral fat area.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Current Status of Robot-Assisted Revisional Bariatric Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Minimally Invasive Revisional Bariatric Surgery in a MBSAQIP Accredited High-Volume Center.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Role of Robotic Surgery in Complex Revisional Bariatric Procedures.Obesity surgery · 2021Article
- Robotic Revisional Bariatric Surgery: a High-Volume Center Experience.Obesity surgery · 2021Article
- Trends in bariatric surgery in Texas: an analysis of a statewide administrative database 2013-2017.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- From the Knife to the Endoscope-a History of Bariatric Surgery.Current obesity reports · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRevisional 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.
methodsThe 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.
results26,404 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/m
conclusionIn 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.