ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
The longitudinal inefficiency of robotic bariatric surgery: can we finally agree we are over the learning curve and robotic bariatric surgery just takes longer?
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. 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.
- Learning curves of surgeon performance and team workflow during the first 100 hugo robotic-assisted small bowel length shortening with sleeve gastrectomy procedures.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic Use, Operative Length, and Readmission after Duodenal Switch: A Retrospective Ten-Year MBSAQIP Analysis Using an Interaction Model.Obesity surgery · 2026Article
- Procedure-specific outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch across a decade of MBSAQIP adoption.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Evaluating trends and outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic bariatric surgery in patients with BMI ≥ 60 kg/mSurgical endoscopy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA preponderance of studies demonstrates that longer operative times lead to poorer outcomes across surgical specialties and operative approaches. The objective of this study was to examine operative time trends and associated perioperative outcomes in robotic bariatric metabolic surgery compared to the laparoscopic approach.
methodsRobotic (RA) and laparoscopic (L) sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and gastric bypass (RYGB) were compared using the 2015-2023 MBSAQIP data. A total of 467,954 patients were propensity score matched 1:1 (age, BMI, sex, comorbidities).
resultsMedian operative times were significantly longer for both RA-SG (80 vs. 58 min; p < 0.01) and RA-RYGB (133 vs. 107 min; p < 0.01) compared with laparoscopic. Over the study period, the difference in median operative times for RA-RYGB vs. L-RYGB along with RA-SG vs. L-SG has decreased (p < 0.01) but not continuously. Operative times for all groups have decreased significantly over the study period (p < 0.01). For both RYGB and SG surgeries, the robotic groups had significantly higher rates of reoperation, readmission, reintervention, and emergency department (ED) visits within the 30-day perioperative window. There were no significant differences in mortality.
conclusionDespite a tenfold increase in annual robotic case volume over 8 years, robotic bariatric operative times remain significantly longer in every year of MBSAQIP data (RA-SG + 28%, p < 0.01; RA-RYGB + 18%, p < 0.01). Longer operative times in the propensity-matched cases are associated with worse 30-day perioperative outcomes for the robotic groups (higher reoperation rates, readmissions, reinterventions, and ED visits). These data imply the surgical community is complicit in both the rising cost of healthcare and the exposure of patient harm despite no identifiable clinical benefit.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41116056What 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.