Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39179689›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024

Robotic bariatric surgery reduces morbidity for revisional gastric bypass when compared to laparoscopic: outcome of 8-year MBSAQIP analysis of over 40,000 cases.

Graham J Spurzem, Ryan C Broderick, Emily K Kunkel, Hannah M Hollandsworth, Bryan J Sandler, Garth R Jacobsen, Santiago Horgan

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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.

Graham J SpurzemDivision of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California San Diego, 9300 Campus Point Dr La Jolla, San Diego, CA, 92037, USA. gspurzem@health.ucsd.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-1134-1754
Ryan C BroderickDivision of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California San Diego, 9300 Campus Point Dr La Jolla, San Diego, CA, 92037, USA.
Emily K KunkelDivision of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California San Diego, 9300 Campus Point Dr La Jolla, San Diego, CA, 92037, USA.
Hannah M HollandsworthDivision of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California San Diego, 9300 Campus Point Dr La Jolla, San Diego, CA, 92037, USA.
Bryan J SandlerDivision of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California San Diego, 9300 Campus Point Dr La Jolla, San Diego, CA, 92037, USA.
Garth R JacobsenDivision of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California San Diego, 9300 Campus Point Dr La Jolla, San Diego, CA, 92037, USA.
Santiago HorganDivision of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California San Diego, 9300 Campus Point Dr La Jolla, San Diego, CA, 92037, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRobotic-assisted metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is gaining popularity. Revisional MBS is associated with higher perioperative morbidity compared to primary MBS. The optimal surgical approach to minimize complications in these complex cases is unclear. The goal of this study was to assess robot utilization in revisional MBS and compare laparoscopic and robotic revisional MBS outcomes in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database.

methodsA retrospective review of the MBSAQIP database was performed identifying revisional sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) cases from 2015 to 2022. Primary MBS, open/emergent cases, cases converted to another approach, and combined cases other than esophagogastroduodenoscopy were excluded. 30-Day outcomes for laparoscopic and robotic cases were compared using multivariate logistic regression adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities, and operative variables.

results41,404 Cases (14,474 SG; 26,930 RYGB) were identified. From 2015 to 2022, the percentage of revisional SG and RYGB cases performed robotically increased from 6.1% and 7.3% to 24.2% and 32.0% respectively. Laparoscopic SG had similar rates of overall morbidity, leak, bleeding, readmission, reoperation, and length of stay compared to robotic. Laparoscopic RYGB had significantly higher rates of overall morbidity (6.2% vs. 4.8%, p < 0.001, AOR 0.80 [0.70-0.93]), blood transfusion (1.5% vs. 1.0%, p < 0.05, AOR 0.74 [0.55-0.99]), superficial incisional SSI (1.2% vs. 0.4%, p < 0.001, AOR 0.30 [0.19-0.47]), and longer length of stay (1.87 vs. 1.76 days, p < 0.001) compared to robotic. Laparoscopic operative times were significantly shorter than robotic (SG: 86.4 ± 45.8 vs. 113.5 ± 51.7 min; RYGB: 130.7 ± 64.7 vs. 165.5 ± 66.8 min, p < 0.001).

conclusionRobot utilization in revisional bariatric surgery is increasing. Robotic surgery has lower postoperative morbidity and shorter length of stay in revisional RYGB when compared to laparoscopic. Robotic platforms may have the capacity to improve the delivery of care for patients undergoing revisional bariatric surgery.

Indexed as

Gastric BypassLaparoscopyObesity, MorbidPostoperative ComplicationsReoperationRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeMBSAQIPRevisional bariatric surgeryRobotic surgeryRoux-en-Y gastric bypassSleeve gastrectomy

Identifiers

PMID39179689
PMCPMC11525439

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.