Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33392998›Full record

ArticleObesity surgery2021

Robotic Revisional Bariatric Surgery: a High-Volume Center Experience.

Nicolas H Dreifuss, Alberto Mangano, Chandra Hassan, Mario A Masrur

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 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Conversion to Roux en Y gastric bypass after sleeve gastrectomy: outcomes from a Middle Eastern cohort.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors.

Nicolas H DreifussDivision of General, Minimally Invasive, and Robotic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, 820 S Wood Street, Rm 611, Clinical Sciences North, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. nicolashdreifuss@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8411-1960
Alberto ManganoDivision of General, Minimally Invasive, and Robotic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, 820 S Wood Street, Rm 611, Clinical Sciences North, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA.
Chandra HassanDivision of General, Minimally Invasive, and Robotic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, 820 S Wood Street, Rm 611, Clinical Sciences North, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA.
Mario A MasrurDivision of General, Minimally Invasive, and Robotic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, 820 S Wood Street, Rm 611, Clinical Sciences North, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe number of bariatric revisional procedures is growing. Scarce evidence is available regarding the role and postoperative outcomes of robotic-assisted revisional bariatric surgery (RRBS). The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and postoperative outcomes of RRBS. MATERIALS AND

methodsA retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of patients who underwent RRBS between 2012 and 2019 was performed. Primary outcomes of interest were 30-day major morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay (LOS), urgent reoperation rates, and percentage of total weight loss (%TWL).

resultsRRBS was performed in 76 patients; among these 60 (78.9%) underwent conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (C-RYGB). Failed weight loss (76%) and gastroesophageal reflux (9.2%) were the main indications for revision. Primary bariatric procedures included gastric band (LAGB) (50%), sleeve gastrectomy (SG) (40.8%), and RYGB (6.6%). Major morbidity and mortality rates were 3.9% and 1.3%, respectively. Mean LOS was 2.1 days, and 3 patients (3.9%) required urgent reoperation. The %TWL at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months was 10.2%, 16.6%, 18.3%, and 22.4% respectively. Comparative analysis of C-RYGB after failed LAGB and SG showed similar morbidity. Higher readmission rates (SG: 22.2% vs. LAGB: 0%, p = 0.007) and lower %EWL at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months were found in C-RYGB after SG.

conclusionThis is one of the largest single-center series of RRBS published in the literature; the data indicate that robotic approach for revisional bariatric surgery is safe and helps achieving further weight loss. RRBS outcomes might be influenced by the primary procedure.

Indexed as

Bariatric SurgeryGastric BypassGastroplastyLaparoscopyObesity, MorbidRobotic Surgical ProceduresGastrectomyHumansReoperationRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeBariatricsRevisional surgeryRobotic bariatric surgeryRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID33392998

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.