Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35020060›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic approach to concurrent bariatric surgery and hiatal hernia repair: propensity score matching analysis using the 2015-2018 MBSAQIP.

Raul Sebastian, Omar M Ghanem, Jorge Cornejo, Thomas Ruttger, Matthew Mayuiers, Gina Adrales, Christina Li

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Raul SebastianDepartment of Surgery, Northwest Hospital, 5401 Old Court Road, Randallstown, MD, 21133, USA. rsebast04@gmail.com.
Omar M GhanemDepartment of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Jorge CornejoDepartment of Surgery, Northwest Hospital, 5401 Old Court Road, Randallstown, MD, 21133, USA.
Thomas RuttgerDepartment of Surgery, Northwest Hospital, 5401 Old Court Road, Randallstown, MD, 21133, USA.
Matthew MayuiersDepartment of Surgery, Northwest Hospital, 5401 Old Court Road, Randallstown, MD, 21133, USA.
Gina AdralesDepartment of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Christina LiDepartment of Surgery, Northwest Hospital, 5401 Old Court Road, Randallstown, MD, 21133, USA.
Northwest Hospital · USJohns Hopkins University · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUp to 37% of class three obesity patients have a Hiatal Hernia (HH). Most of the existent HHs get repaired at the time of bariatric surgery. Although the robotic platform might offer potential technical advantages over traditional laparoscopy, the clinical outcomes of the concurrent bariatric surgery and HH repair comparing robotic vs laparoscopic approaches have not been reported.

methodsUsing the 2015-2018 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database, patients between 18 and 65 year old who underwent Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) with concurrent HH repair were identified. Demographic, operative, and 30-day postoperative outcomes data were compared between laparoscopic and robotic groups. To adjust for potential confounders, 1:1 propensity score matching was performed using 22 preoperative characteristics.

results75,034 patients underwent SG (n = 61,458) or RYGB (n = 13,576) with concurrent HH repair. The operative time was significantly longer in the Robotic-assisted compared to the laparoscopic approach both for SG (102.31 ± 44 vs. 75.27 ± 37; P < 0.001) and for RYGB (163.48 ± 65 vs. 132.87 ± 57; P < 0.001). In the SG cohort (4639 matched cases), the robotic approach showed similar results in 30 day outcomes as in the laparoscopic approach, with no statistical difference. Conversely, for the RYGB cohort (1502 matched cases), the robotic approach showed significantly fewer requirements for blood transfusions (0.3% vs. 1.7%; P = 0.001), fewer anastomotic leaks (0.2% vs. 0.8%; P = 0.035), and less postoperative bleeding (0.4% vs. 1.1%; P = 0.049).

conclusionRobotic concurrent bariatric surgery and HH repair leads to similar overall clinical outcomes as the laparoscopic approach despite longer operative times. Furthermore, the robotic approach is associated with reduced blood transfusion and anastomotic leak incidence in the RYGB group.

Indexed as

Bariatric SurgeryGastric BypassLaparoscopyObesity, MorbidRoboticsAccreditationAdolescentAdultAgedAnastomotic LeakGastrectomyHerniorrhaphyHumansMiddle AgedPropensity ScoreQuality ImprovementBariatric surgeryHiatal hernia repairMinimally invasive surgeryRobotic bariatric surgeryRobotic gastric bypassRobotic sleeve gastrectomy

Identifiers

PMID35020060
OpenAlexW4206796444

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.