Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33165753›Full record

ArticleObesity surgery2021

Trends in Utilization and Perioperative Outcomes in Robotic-assisted Bariatric surgery using the MBSAQIP database: A 4-Year Analysis.

Thomas Scarritt, Chiu-Hsieh Hsu, Felipe B Maegawa, Alfonso E Ayala, Matthew Mobily, Iman Ghaderi

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Obesity surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

6 authors.

Thomas ScarrittSection of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Arizona College of Medicine, 1501N. Campbell Avenue, P.O. Box 245066, Tucson, AZ, 85724-5066, USA.
Chiu-Hsieh HsuEpidemiology and Biostatistics Department, University of Arizona College of Public Health, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Felipe B MaegawaSection of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Arizona College of Medicine, 1501N. Campbell Avenue, P.O. Box 245066, Tucson, AZ, 85724-5066, USA.
Alfonso E AyalaSection of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Arizona College of Medicine, 1501N. Campbell Avenue, P.O. Box 245066, Tucson, AZ, 85724-5066, USA.
Matthew MobilySection of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Arizona College of Medicine, 1501N. Campbell Avenue, P.O. Box 245066, Tucson, AZ, 85724-5066, USA.
Iman GhaderiSection of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Arizona College of Medicine, 1501N. Campbell Avenue, P.O. Box 245066, Tucson, AZ, 85724-5066, USA. iman.ghaderi@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6723-554X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeRobotic-assisted surgery has become increasingly popular across surgical subspecialties. We aimed to analyze trends in the national utilization and outcomes in bariatric surgery. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP®) data for 2015-2018 was queried. We included robotic-assisted sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), adjustable gastric band (AGB), biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD-DS), and revisional cases. The Kruskal-Wallis test or Wilcoxon rank-sum were used for comparing continuous variables and Cochran-Armitage trend analysis for categorical variables when comparing years, or with Fisher's Exact Test when directly comparing categories.

resultsOf 760,076 bariatric cases performed between 2015 and 2018, 7.4% with robotic and 90.4% with laparoscopic approach. SG constituted 61.3% of robotic volume. Utilization of robotic surgery increased 1.96-fold; SG represented the most substantial increase of 2.16-fold, followed by a 1.53-fold in RYGB. The 30-day readmission and re-intervention rates decreased from 5.63% to 4.78% (p<0.01), and 2.31% to 1.46% (p<0.01), respectively. The overall leak rate improved from 0.64% to 0.39% (p=0.01). Mortality and re-operations remained statistically unchanged. When compared to laparoscopic approach, the operative time were significantly longer in the robotic group. Regarding postoperative outcomes, when adjusted for patient characteristics, there were no differences between two approaches except a higher leak rate in robotic group in 2015.

conclusionA steady increase in robotic bariatric surgery is apparent. While the operative time remains significantly longer in the robotic group, trends indicate improvement in key quality metrics and patient outcomes as utilization increases.

Indexed as

Bariatric SurgeryGastric BypassLaparoscopyObesity, MorbidRobotic Surgical ProceduresGastrectomyHumansRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeBariatric surgerylaparoscopicoutcomesRobotic surgeryshort-term complications

Identifiers

PMID33165753

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.