ArticleObesity surgery2024
First Assistant In Bariatric Surgery: A Comparison Between Laparoscopic And Robotic Approaches: A 4-Year Analysis of the MBSAQIP Database (2016-2019).
Article in Obesity surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Port Site Placement and Outcomes for Surgical Obesity and Metabolic Surgeries (PSPOSO) Checklist: A New Reporting Checklist Based on Evidential Assessment of the Number of Trocars and Positions.Obesity surgery · 2025Pooled it
- A Systematic Review to Summarise and Appraise the Reporting of Surgical Innovation: a Case Study in Robotic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass.Obesity surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Metabolic and Bariatric Surgeon Criteria-An International Experts' Consensus.Obesity surgery · 2024Article
- Current applications of indocyanine green (ICG) in abdominal, gynecologic and urologic surgery: a meta-review and quality analysis with use of the AMSTAR 2 instrument.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe first assistant (FA) plays an important role in the operating room for bariatric surgery. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between the type of FA and operative time (OT) and postoperative outcomes comparing robotic and laparoscopic approaches in bariatric surgery. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) data for 2016-2019 was queried. Log-normal regression was performed to evaluate the association of FAs and OT variations within and between groups. We used logistic regression to examine the relationship between the type of FA and 30-day outcomes across all procedures and approaches.
resultsA total of 691,789 patients who underwent robotic (R), and laparoscopic (L) sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric-bypass (RYGB), and duodenal switch (DS) were included. The percentage variation of OT was higher in the laparoscopic group (L-SG: 8.18%, L-RYGB: 9.88%, and L-DS: 15.00%) compared to the robotic group (R-SG: 2.43%, R-RYGB: 5.76%, and R-DS: 0.80%). There was not a significant difference in 30-day outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic approaches for the same procedures.
conclusionsThe FA was associated with a decreased variability in OT in the robotic cohort compared to the laparoscopic group with no significant difference in complication rates. These results suggest that the robotic approach may decrease the need for skilled FAs in bariatric procedures.
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.