Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 30, Issue 9, pp 3792–3796 | Cite as

Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a retrospective, single-center study of early perioperative outcomes at a community hospital

  • Arif AhmadEmail author
  • Jared D. Carleton
  • Zoha F. Ahmad
  • Ashish Agarwala



The purpose of this study was to compare the operative and early perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures performed in a community hospital setting.


The study was a chart review and analysis of the early perioperative outcomes of a total of 345 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures performed by a single surgeon in a community hospital setting from January 2011 to October 2014. Of these, 173 procedures were performed laparoscopically and 172 were performed with robotic assistance utilizing the daVinci® surgical platform. Factors such as baseline patient characteristics, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), conversions to open procedure, complication rates, adverse events, length of stay (LOS), and return to the operating room for the two groups were retrospectively analyzed from a prospectively maintained database. Student’s t test with unequal variances was used for statistical analysis, and a p value <0.05 was used for significance.


There were no statistically significant differences in complication rates, EBL, or LOS between the two groups. There was a significant difference between the total operative times (135.30 ± 37.60 min for the laparoscopic procedure versus 154.84 ± 38.44 min for the robotic procedure, p < 0.05). There were no adverse intraoperative events, conversions to open procedures, leaks, strictures, returns to the operating room within 30 days, or mortalities in either group.


Our study, which is the first of its kind to analyze the operative and early perioperative outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures in the US community hospital setting, indicates that both are comparable in terms of safety, efficacy, and operative and early perioperative outcomes.


Roux-en-Y gastric bypass Laparoscopic Robotics Morbid obesity Bariatric surgery Community hospital 


Compliance with ethical standards


Doctors Jared Carleton, Ashish Agrawala, and Arif Ahmad have no conflicts of interest to report. Zoha Ahmad has no conflicts of interest to report.


  1. 1.
    Barbash G, Glied S (2010) New technology and health care costs—the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363:701–704CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Garza U, Echeverria A, Galvani C (2012). Robotic-assisted bariatric surgery. Advanced bariatric and metabolic surgery, pp 297–316Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ogden C, Carroll M, Kit B, Flegal K (2014) Prevalence of childhood and adult obesity in the United States, 2011–2012. JAMA 311(8):806–814CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hagen M, Pugin F, Chassot G et al (2012) Reducing cost of surgery by avoiding complications: the model of robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Obes Surg 22(1):52–61CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Camarillo B, Krummel T, Salisbury J (2004) Robotic technology in surgery: past, present, and future. Am J Surg 188(4):2–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bailey J, Hayden J, Davis P et al (2014) Robotic versus laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in obese adults ages 18 to 65 years: a systematic review and economic analysis. Surg Endosc 28:414–426CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yu SC, Clapp B, Lee MJ et al (2006) Robotic assistance provides excellent outcomes during the learning curve for laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: results from 100 robotic-assisted gastric bypasses. Am J Surg 192(6):746–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yu HY, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR et al (2012) Use, costs, and comparative effectiveness of robotic assisted, laparoscopic and open urologic surgery. Eur Urol 61:1239–1244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pasic RP, Rizzo JA, Fang H et al (2010) Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17:730–738CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hubens G, Balliu L, Ruppert M et al (2008) Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedure performed with the da Vinci robot system: is it worth it? Surg Endosc 22:1690–1696CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN et al (2013) Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA 309:689–698CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Breitenstein S, Nocito A, Puhan M et al (2008) Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a case-matched control study. Ann Surg 247(6):987–993CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Toro J, Lin E, Patel A (2015) Review of robotics in foregut and bariatric surgery. Surg Endosc 29(1):1–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Horgan S, Vanuno D (2001) Robots in laparoscopic surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 11(6):415–419CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jin L, Ibrahim A, Newman N et al (2011) Robotic surgery claims on United States hospital websites. J Healthc Qual 33:48–52CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arif Ahmad
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Jared D. Carleton
    • 1
  • Zoha F. Ahmad
    • 1
  • Ashish Agarwala
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of General and Bariatric SurgeryJohn T. Mather Memorial HospitalPort JeffersonUSA
  2. 2.Department of General and Bariatric SurgerySt. Charles HospitalPort JeffersonUSA
  3. 3.Division of General and Bariatric Surgery, Department of SurgeryStony Brook University Medical CenterStony BrookUSA

Personalised recommendations