ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2021
Outcomes of robotic surgery in revisional bariatric cases: a propensity score-matched analysis of the MBSAQIP registry.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Revisional Bariatric Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis on Perioperative Outcomes.Obesity surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Clinical presentation and outcomes of revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass after failed gastric banding: direct versus sleeve-assisted approach.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Total cost of care of robotic-assisted surgery in an integrated delivery network in Eastern Pennsylvania.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Article
- Scientific Evidence for the Updated Guidelines on Indications for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (IFSO/ASMBS).Obesity surgery · 2024Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2023Article
- Is Robotic Revisional Bariatric Surgery Justified? An MBSAQIP Analysis.Obesity surgery · 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
- Understanding the Current Role of Robotic-Assisted Bariatric Surgery.Obesity surgery · 2021Article
- Role of Robotic Surgery in Complex Revisional Bariatric Procedures.Obesity surgery · 2021Article
- Robotic Revisional Bariatric Surgery: a High-Volume Center Experience.Obesity surgery · 2021Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the number of Revisional Bariatric Surgery (RBS) cases performed to address complications and weight recidivism. The use of the da Vinci robotic platform, considered controversial by many, may offer advantages in RBS. The objective of our study is to compare the outcomes of Robotic RBS (R-RBS) to Laparoscopic RBS (L-RBS). Using the 2015-2017 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database, we selected all RBS and we matched R-RBS to L-RBS using a propensity score matching system to create balanced groups. Our primary outcomes were 30-day Serious Adverse Events (SAE), 30-day Organ Specific Infection (OSI), 30-day reoperation and 30-day interventions. Our secondary outcomes included length of operation and 30-day readmission. We conducted separate Mann-Whitney rank sums tests or chi-square tests and Fisher exact test. R-RBS and L-RBS included 220 patients each. The overall incidence of 30-day SAEs, 30-day OSIs, 30-day reoperations, 30-day interventions were lower for R-RBS (6.4%, 0.9%, 2.7% and 2.3%, respectively) compared L-RBS (7.7%, 1.4%, 3.6% and 3.6%, respectively). Subgroup analysis showed that R-RBS had a lower rate of complications for the Gastric Bypass procedure but not for Sleeve gastrectomy cases. However, 30-day readmission was higher for R-RBS compared to L-RBS (9.1% vs 6.4% respectively). None of the analyses reached statistical significance. R-RBS took significantly longer compared to L-RBS (169 min vs 138 min, p < 0.05). Our study shows that R-RBS has lower complication rate albeit non-significant as compared to L-RBS.
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.