Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cost Analysis of Robotic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in a Single Academic Center: How Expensive Is Expensive?

  • Original Contributions
  • Published:
Obesity Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 20 August 2020

This article has been updated

Abstract

Background

Although the use of da Vinci robotic platforms in bariatric surgery is gaining momentum, it is still controversial because of financial concerns.

Objectives

The objective of our study is to evaluate the cost of robotically assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (R-RYGB) versus conventional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (L-RYGB).

Methods

We analyzed consecutive primary bariatric patients who underwent R-RYGB and compared them with patients who underwent L-RYGB during the same time period. Primary outcomes were overall cost for length of stay, operating time, and supplies. Direct cost data was generated using the StrataJazz reporting module, which is fed daily from EPIC, our electronic health record system, and contains hospital-based data only. Secondary outcomes were 30-day rates of complications, reoperations, and readmissions.

Results

We found no difference in primary or secondary outcomes following R-RYGB and L-RYGB. The overall cost for R-RYGB and L-RYGB was not statistically different (median total cost for R-RYGB and L-RYBG was $6431.34 and $6349.09, P > 0.05, respectively). Operating time cost was significantly higher for R-RYGB compared with L-RYGB ($2248.51 versus $19,836.29, respectively, P < 0.0001, respectively). R-RYGB had lower cost of supplies as well as a shorter length of stay compared with L-RYGB (mean 1.5 versus 1.7 days, respectively).

Conclusions

Our study revealed no cost difference between R-RYGB and L-RYGB, with a decreased cost of supplies and trend toward lower hospital stay favoring R-RYGB. Further studies are needed to evaluate the outcomes of R-RYGB compared with L-RYGB; however, the cost of robotic surgery may not be a prohibitive factor.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 20 August 2020

    In the original article, due to a misplaced comma and decimal point, a number that was included in Table 2, as well as in the abstract and text, was off by a factor of ten.

References

  1. Nguyen NT, Nguyen B, Gebhart A, et al. Changes in the makeup of bariatric surgery: a national increase in use of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216:252–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gonzalez R, Nelson LG, Gallagher SF, et al. Anastomotic leaks after laparoscopic gastric bypass. Obes Surg. 2004;14(10):1299–307.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jung MK, Hagen ME, Buchs NC, Buehler LH, Morel P. Robotic bariatric surgery: a general review of the current status. Int J Med Robot. 2017;13(4)

  4. Tekkis PP, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP, Fazio VW. Evaluation of the learning curve in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: comparison of right-sided and left-sided resections. Ann Surg. 2005; 242: 83±91.

  5. Peters BS, Armijo PR, Krause C, et al. Review of emerging surgical robotic technology. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(4):1636–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Berguer R, Rab G, Abu-Ghaida H, et al. A comparison of surgeons’ posture during laparoscopic and open surgical procedures. Surg Endosc. 1997;11:139–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Clinical Issues Committee of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. Updated position statement on sleeve gastrectomy as a bariatric procedure. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2010;6(1):1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Masoomi H, Kim H, Reavis KM, et al. Analysis of factors predictive of gastrointestinal tract leak in laparoscopic and open gastric bypass. Arch Surg. 2011;146(9):1048–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fourman MM, Saber AA. Robotic bariatric surgery: a systemic review. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2012;8(4):483–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Li K, Zou J, Tang J, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Surg. 2016;26(12):3031–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hubens G, Balliu L, Ruppert M, et al. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedure performed with the da Vinci robot system: is it worth it? Surg Endosc. 2007;22(7):1690–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bailey J, Hayden J, Davis P, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) in obese adults ages 18 to 65 years: a systematic review and economic analysis. Surg Endosc. 2013;28(2):414–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lyn-Sue J, Winder J, Kotch S, et al. Laparoscopic gastric bypass to robotic gastric bypass: time and cost commitment involved in training and transitioning an academic surgical practice. J Robot Surg. 2016;10(2):111–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Altieri M, Yang J, Telem D, et al. Robotic approaches may offer benefit in colorectal procedures, more controversial in other areas: a review of 168,248 cases. Surg Endosc. 2015;30(3):925–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gill R, Al-Adra D, Birch D, et al. Robotic-assisted bariatric surgery: a systematic review. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg. 2011;7(4):249–55.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fourman M, Saber A. Robotic bariatric surgery: a systematic review. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2012;8(4):483–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cirocchi R, Boselli C, Santoro A, et al. Current status of robotic bariatric surgery: a systematic review. BMC Surg 2013;13:53. Robotic and laparoscopic gastric bypass safety/surgery for obesity and related diseases 13 (2017) 1847–1852 1851

  18. Markar S, Karthikesalingam A, Venkat-Ramen V, et al. Robotic vs. laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in morbidly obese patients: systematic review and pooled analysis. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg. 2011;7(4):393–400.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Economopoulos K, Theocharidis V, Mckenzie T, et al. Robotic vs. laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Surg. 2015;25(11):2180–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Demaria E, Pate V, Warthen M, et al. Baseline data from American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery-designated Bariatric Surgery Centers of Excellence using the bariatric outcomes longitudinal database. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2010;6(4):347–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Spaniolas K, Kasten K, Celio A, et al. Postoperative follow-up after bariatric surgery: effect on weight loss. Obes Surg. 2016;26(4):900–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Moon R, Gutierrez J, Royall N, et al. Robotic Rouxen-Y gastric bypass, is it safer than laparoscopic bypass? Obes Surg. 2016;26(5):1016–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Buchs N, Morel P, Azagury D, et al. Laparoscopic versus robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: lessons and long-term follow-up learned from a large prospective monocentric study. Obes Surg. 2014;24(12):2031–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Snyder B, Wilson T, Scarborough T, et al. Lowering gastrointestinal leak rates: a comparative analysis of robotic and laparoscopic gastric bypass. J Robot Surg. 2008;2(3):159–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hagen M, Pugin F, Chassot G, et al. Reducing cost of surgery by avoiding complications: the model of robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Obes Surg. 2011;22(1):52–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ayloo S, Addeo P, Shah G, et al. Robot-assisted hybrid laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: surgical technique and early outcomes. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2010;20(10):847–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Daley B, Cecil W, Clarke P, et al. How slow is too slow? Correlation of operative time to complications: an analysis from the Tennessee Surgical Quality Collaborative. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;220(4):550–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Curet M, Solomon H, Liu G, et al. Comparison of hospital charges between robotic, laparoscopic stapled, and laparoscopic handsewn Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. J Robot Surg. 2009;3(3):199.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Scozzari G, Rebecchi F, Millo P, et al. Robot-assisted gastrojejunal anastomosis does not improve the results of the laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Endosc. 2010;25(2):597–603.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mühlmann G, Klaus A, Kirchmayr W, et al. DaVinci robotic-assisted laparoscopic bariatric surgery: is it justified in a routine setting? Obes Surg. 2003;13(6):848–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Barbash G, Glied S. New technology and health care costs - the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(8):701–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. El Chaar M, Gacke J, Ringold S, et al. Cost analysis of robotic sleeve gastrectomy (R-SG) compared with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (L-SG) in a single academic center: debunking a myth! Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2019;15(5):675–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lundberg P, Wolfe S, Seone J, et al. Robotic gastric bypass is getting better: first results from the metabolic and bariatric surgery accreditation and quality improvement program. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2018;14(9):1240–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Luciani LG, Mattevi D, Mantovani W, et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a comparative analysis of the surgical outcomes in a single regional center. Curr Urol. 2017;11(1):36–41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Zechmeister JR, Pua TL, Boyd LR, et al. A prospective comparison of postoperative pain and quality of life in robotic assisted vs conventional laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(2):194.e1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Moon RC, Stephenson D, Royall NA, et al. Robotassisted versus laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: learning curve, perioperative, and short-term outcomes. Obes Surg. 2016;26(10):1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Stefanidis D, Bailey SB, Kuwada T, et al. Robotic gastric bypass may lead to fewer complications compared with laparoscopy. Surg Endosc. 2017;32(2):610–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Beniziri E, Renaud M, Reibel N, et al. Perioperative outcomes after totally robotic gastric bypass: a prospective nonrandomized controlled study. Am J Surg. 2013;206(2):145–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Blackstone R, Dimick JB, Nguyen NT. Accreditation in metabolic and bariatric surgery: pro versus con. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2014;10(2):198–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kohn GP, Galanko JA, Overby DW, et al. High case volumes and surgical fellowships are associated with improved outcomes for bariatric surgery patients: a justification of current credentialing initiatives for practice and training. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210(6):909–18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Kwon S, Wang B, Wong E, et al. The impact of accreditation on safety and cost of bariatric surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2013;9(5):617–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Guzzetta A. “Masters program bariatric pathway: robotic RYGB and revisional bariatrics.” The SAGES Manual of Robotic Surgery, by Ankit D. Patel and Dmitry Oleynikov, Springer International Publishing, 2018, pp. 133–135.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. St. Luke’s University Health Network, Bethlehem, PA, USA

    Keith King, Alvaro Galvez, Jill Stoltzfus, Leonardo Claros & Maher El Chaar

  2. St. Luke’s University Health Network, Suite 205 North, 240 Cetronia Road, Allentown, PA, 18104, USA

    Keith King & Alvaro Galvez

  3. Temple Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Jill Stoltzfus, Leonardo Claros & Maher El Chaar

Authors
  1. Keith King
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alvaro Galvez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jill Stoltzfus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Leonardo Claros
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maher El Chaar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keith King.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval Statement

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Statement of Informed Consent

Does not apply.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

King, K., Galvez, A., Stoltzfus, J. et al. Cost Analysis of Robotic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in a Single Academic Center: How Expensive Is Expensive?. OBES SURG 30, 4860–4866 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-020-04881-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-020-04881-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation