Obesity Surgery

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 11–17 | Cite as

Robotic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass as a Revisional Bariatric Procedure: a Single-Center Prospective Cohort Study

  • Fabrizio Rebecchi
  • Elettra Ugliono
  • Marco Ettore Allaix
  • Mauro Toppino
  • Alessandro Borello
  • Mario MorinoEmail author
Original Contributions



Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is the procedure of choice to manage the failure of primary bariatric surgery. However, the current evidence on the role of the robotic technology in revisional bariatric surgery is very limited. The aim of this study is to report safety and effectiveness of revisional RYGB performed with the DaVinci Robotic Surgical System (R-rRYGB) after failed primary bariatric surgery.


Clinical data of consecutive patients undergoing R-rRYGB were included in a prospectively collected database. Intraoperative findings, early postoperative outcomes, and 1-year follow-up results were considered. Primary outcome was postoperative morbidity rate. Secondary outcomes were conversion to open surgery, length of stay, percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL), resolution of complications, and costs.


A total of 68 patients underwent R-rRYGB at our department from 2011 to 2016. Primary procedures were laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (n = 10), vertical banded gastroplasty (n = 43), and sleeve gastrectomy (n = 15). Conversion rate to open surgery was 2.9%. Postoperative morbidity rate was 8.8%, with no anastomotic leaks reported. Total cost for surgical procedure was 14,334.7 ± 2920.4 €.


Revisional RYGB is a complex procedure but can be performed with the robotic approach with a low morbidity rate. Weight loss outcomes and resolution of complications of the index procedure are satisfactory.


RYGB Robot Revisional bariatric surgery 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

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


  1. 1.
    Puzziferri N, Roshek TB, Mayo HG, et al. Long-term follow-up after bariatric surgery: a systematic review. JAMA. 2014;312(9):934–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chang S-H, Stoll CRT, Song J, et al. The effectiveness and risks of bariatric surgery: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis, 2003-2012. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(3):275–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buchwald H, Avidor Y, Braunwald E, et al. Bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2004;292(14):1724–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clapp B, Wynn M, Martyn C, et al. Long term (7 or more years) outcomes of the sleeve gastrectomy: a meta-analysis. Surg Obes Relat Dis Off J Am Soc Bariatr Surg. 2018;14:741–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Switzer NJ, Karmali S, Gill RS, et al. Revisional bariatric surgery. Surg Clin North Am. 2016;96(4):827–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brethauer SA, Kothari S, Sudan R, et al. Systematic review on reoperative bariatric surgery. American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Revision Task Force Surg Obes Relat Dis Off J Am Soc Bariatr Surg. 2014;10(5):952–72.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mahawar KK, Nimeri A, Adamo M, et al. Practices concerning revisional bariatric surgery: a survey of 460 surgeons. Obes Surg. 2018;28:2650–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhang L, Tan WH, Chang R, et al. Perioperative risk and complications of revisional bariatric surgery compared to primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Endosc. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(6):1316–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mahawar KK, Graham Y, Carr WRJ, et al. Revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy: a systematic review of comparative outcomes with respective primary procedures. Obes Surg. 2015;25:1271–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pędziwiatr M, Małczak P, Wierdak M, et al. Revisional gastric bypass is inferior to primary gastric bypass in terms of short- and long-term outcomes-systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Surg. 2018;28(7):2083–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Szold A, Bergamaschi R, Broeders I, et al. European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(2):253–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cirocchi R, Boselli C, Santoro A, et al. Current status of robotic bariatric surgery: a systematic review. BMC Surg. 2013;13:53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jung MK, Hagen ME, Buchs NC, et al. Robotic bariatric surgery: a general review of the current status. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg MRCAS. 2017 Dec;13:4.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Buchs NC, Pugin F, Azagury DE, et al. Robotic revisional bariatric surgery: a comparative study with laparoscopic and open surgery. Int J Med Robot. 2014;10(2):213–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Snyder B, Wilson T, Woodruff V, et al. Robotically assisted revision of bariatric surgeries is safe and effective to achieve further weight loss. World J Surg. 2013;37(11):2569–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ayloo SM, Choudhury N. Robotic revisional bariatric surgery: single-surgeon case series. Int J Med Robot. 2015;11(3)284–89. Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gray KD, Moore MD, Elmously A, et al. Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic revisional bariatric surgery in a complex patient population. Obes Surg. 2018;28(7):1852–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bindal V, Gonzalez-Heredia R, Elli EF. Outcomes of robot-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass as a reoperative bariatric procedure. Obes Surg. 2015;25(10):1810–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reinhold RB. Critical analysis of long term weight loss following gastric bypass. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1982;155(3):385–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Armstrong D, Bennett JR, Blum AL, et al. The endoscopic assessment of esophagitis: a progress report on observer agreement. Gastroenterology. 1996;111(1):85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Scozzari G, Zanini M, Cravero F, et al. High incidence of trocar site hernia after laparoscopic or robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(10):2890–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rebecchi F, Allaix ME, Ugliono E, et al. Increased esophageal exposure to weakly acidic reflux 5 years after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Ann Surg. 2016;264(5):871–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Angrisani L, Santonicola A, Iovino P, et al. IFSO worldwide survey 2016: primary, endoluminal, and revisional procedures. Obes Surg. 2018;28:3783–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Snyder BE, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Buchs NC, Morel P, Azagury DE, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Economopoulos KP, Theocharidis V, McKenzie TJ, et al. Robotic vs. laparoscopic Roux-En-Y gastric bypass: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Surg. 2015;25(11):2180–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bailey JG, Hayden JA, Davis PJB, 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. 2014;28(2):414–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Markar SR, Karthikesalingam AP, 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 MRCAS. 2011;7(4):393–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.General Surgery and Center for Minimal Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgical SciencesUniversity of TorinoTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations