ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
Australian experience with robot-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass with comparison to a conventional laparoscopic series.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Robotic bariatric surgery in Australia: early outcomes from a national clinical quality registry with propensity score matched analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic surgery is a novel approach to abdominal surgery. In Australia, the uptake of robotic assistance for bariatric surgery has been relatively slow compared to many other countries. The aim of this study is to report the first high volume experience of robotic-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery in Australia (RRYGB) and compare outcomes with a similar laparoscopic group (LRYGB).
methodsRetrospective analysis of 100 RRYGB versus 100 LRYGB was carried out over a period of seven years performed by two surgeons. These groups were matched by revisional status. Outcomes recorded included operative times, conversion rate, hospital stay, short-term (30 days) complication rates, and long-term complication rates. Baseline comorbidities of patients were also recorded.
resultsBaseline characteristics of the two groups were similar except for comorbidity rates (higher in LRYGB group). The mean age was 43 (RRYGB) and 44(LRYGB) years, respectively. The mean pre-op BMI was 44.3 in the RRYGB group and 44.7 in the LRYGB group. Mean operating time in the RRYGB group was 208 min compared to 175 min in the LRYGB group. The number of patients with major complications was 1 in the robotic group versus 5 in the laparoscopic group (P: 0.2166). Minor complications were higher in the robotic group (17 vs. 5, P: 0.0054). Median length of stay of patients with RRYGB was 4 days compared to 5 days for the LRYGB group.
conclusionRRYGB has been successfully implemented in Australia with low complication rates compared to conventional laparoscopic RYGB. Operating times are longer compared to LRYGB which is consistent with most published literature. To justify increased costs generally associated with robotic surgery, better quality studies are needed to accurately assess potential cost savings with length of stay and safety benefits to patients and institutions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34524534What 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.