ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Effectiveness of bedside staplers in bariatric robotic procedures.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors associated with increased costs in robotic gastric bypass surgery: Australian healthcare system perspective.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- 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 · 2025Article
- Trends, Patient Outcomes, and Resource Utilization Associated with Surgical Staplers During Robotic Sleeve Gastrectomy.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFew studies have evaluated the use of laparoscopic staplers in robotic procedures (bedside stapling, BS). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of BS compared with robotic staplers (RS) in bariatric robotic procedures.
methodsPatients who underwent robotic sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass elective procedures between 1/1/2021 and 12/31/2021 were extracted from PINC AI™ Healthcare Data. The following clinical outcomes were compared: blood transfusion, bleeding, anastomotic leak, intensive care unit (ICU) visit, and 30-day readmission, operating room (OR) time, inpatient costs, and length of stay. We evaluated baseline balance in BS and RS and bivariate association between covariates and outcomes using Chi-square or Fisher exact test and t-test or ANOVA. Multivariable general linear mixed models (GLMMs) with respective gamma or binomial distribution and log-link function were used to obtain adjusted outcomes variations between BS and RS.
resultsTotal of 7268 discharges were included with 1603 (22.1%) BS and 5665 (77.9%) RS cases. RS cases consisted of a higher number of patients who were Hispanic (17.0% vs. 9.4%), had Medicaid (26.9% vs. 19.4%) and underwent sleeve gastrectomy (68.4% vs. 53.5%). Higher proportions of RS cases were done by providers in Northeast region (35.5% vs. 24.3%), smaller size (< 500 beds; 71.1% vs. 52.3%), and teaching hospitals (59.4% vs. 39%). The adjusted outcomes variations demonstrated that patients that had RS were significantly more likely to have blood transfusions, ICU stays, increased ORT (19 min) and costs ($1273). Sensitivity analysis showed similar results, except no significant differences in blood transfusion rates in both groups.
conclusionsBedside staplers significantly reduce healthcare resource utilization with equivalent effectiveness and fewer ICU stays compared to robotic staplers.
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.