The Longitudinal Efficiency of Robotic Surgery: an MBSAQIP Propensity Matched 4-Year Comparison of Robotic and Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery

Abstract

Background

The objective of this study was to examine the MBSAQIP database to assess efficiency trends and perioperative outcomes in robotic bariatric surgery.

Methods

Robotic (RA) and laparoscopic (L) sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and gastric bypass (RYGB) were compared using the 2015–2018 MBSAQIP Participant Use Data Files. Patients were propensity matched 1:1 based on sex, body mass index, assistant, and previous obesity or foregut surgery. A total of 93,802 patients were included.

Results

Median operative times were significantly longer for both RA-SG (89 vs. 62 min; p < 0.0001) and RA-RYGB (141 vs. 105 min; p < 0.0001) compared with laparoscopic. Over the 4-year period, the difference in operative times (OR delta) between RA-SG and L-SG was unchanged while the difference in operative times between RA-RYGB and L-RYGB increased. Both robotic groups were significantly more likely to be readmitted (RA-SG p = 0.001, RA-RYGB p = 0.006). Robotic SG was more likely to have a reintervention (p = 0.018) and extended length of stay (LOS) (> 4 days) compared with laparoscopic (p = < 0.0002). No significant differences were noted in morbidity and mortality by approach.

Conclusions

Operative times were 30% longer for RA-SG and 25% longer for RA-RYGB when compared with laparoscopic. There was no significant improvement in OR delta for either RA-SG or RA-RYGB over the four years. Readmission rates were higher for both RA-SG and RA-RYGB. Robotic SG had a greater percentage of patients with extended LOS compared with laparoscopic. No evidence of improved efficiency for robotic bariatric surgery as defined by operative time or clinical outcomes was identified.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. 1.

    Subramonian K, Muir G. The ‘learning curve’ in surgery: what is it, how do we measure it and can we influence it? BJU Int. 2004;93(9):1173–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Wittgrove AC, Clark GW, Tremblay LJ. Laparoscopic gastric bypass, Roux-en-Y: preliminary report of five cases. Obes Surg. 1994;4(4):353–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Aiolfi A, Tornese S, Bonitta G, et al. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic, and robotic approach. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2019;15:985–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Masoomi H, Nguyen NT, Stamos MJ, et al. Overview of outcomes of laparoscopic and open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in the United States. Surg Technol Int. 2012;22:72–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Nguyen NT, Goldman C, Rosenquist CJ, et al. Laparoscopic versus open gastric bypass: a randomized study of outcomes, quality of life, and costs. Ann Surg. 2001;234(3):279–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Wittgrove AC, Clark GW. Laparoscopic gastric bypass, roux en-Y-500 patients: technique and results, with 3-60 month follow-up. Obes Surg. 2000;10(3):233–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Horgan S, Vanuno D. Robots in laparoscopic surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2001;11(6):415–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Kenngott HG, Müller-Stich BP, Reiter MA, et al. Robotic suturing: Technique and benefit in advanced laparoscopic surgery. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2008;17(3):160–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Prasad SM, Prasad SM, Maniar HS, et al. Surgical robotics: impact of motion scaling on task performance. J Am Coll Surg. 2004;199(6):863–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Lee GI, Lee MR, Clanton T, et al. Comparative assessment of physical and cognitive ergonomics associated with robotic and traditional laparoscopic surgeries. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(2):456–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 2009;302(14):1557–64.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Catalyst N. What Is Value-Based Healthcare? NEJM Catalyst. 2017;3(1)

  14. 14.

    Bailey JG, Hayden JA, Davis PJ, 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Papasavas P, Seip RL, Stone A, et al. Robot-assisted sleeve Gastrectomy and roux-en-Y gastric bypass: results from the metabolic and bariatric surgery accreditation and quality improvement program data registry. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2019;15:1281–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Sharma G, Strong AT, Tu C, et al. Robotic platform for gastric bypass is associated with more resource utilization: an analysis of MBSAQIP dataset. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2018;14(3):304–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Sebastian R, Howell MH, Chang K, et al. Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy: a propensity score-matched comparative analysis using the 2015-2016 MBSAQIP database. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(5):1600–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Sanford J, Kadry B, Brodsky J, et al. Bariatric surgery operating room time—size matters. Obes Surg. 2015;25(6):1078–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Mahan ME, Parker DM, Fluck M, et al. First assistant impact on early morbidity and mortality in bariatric surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2019;15(9):1541–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Higgins R, Helm MC, Kindel TL, et al. Perioperative outcomes following robotic bariatric surgery: an MBSAQIP analysis. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2018;14(11):S50–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Subramonian K, DeSylva S, Bishai P, et al. Acquiring surgical skills: a comparative study of open versus laparoscopic surgery. Eur Urol. 2004;45(3):346–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Kim T, Daud A, Ude A, et al. Early U.S. outcomes of laparoscopic gastric bypass versus laparoscopic adjustable silicone gastric banding for morbid obesity. Surg Endosc. 2006;20(2):202–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Puzziferri N, Austrheim-Smith IT, Wolfe BM, et al. Three-Year Follow-up of a Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Laparoscopic Versus Open Gastric Bypass. Ann Surg. 2006;243(2):181–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Sekhar N, Torquati A, Youssef Y, et al. A comparison of 399 open and 568 laparoscopic gastric bypasses performed during a 4-year period. Surg Endosc. 2007;21(4):665–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Armijo PR, Pagkratis S, Boilesen E, et al. Growth in robotic-assisted procedures is from conversion of laparoscopic procedures and not from open surgeons’ conversion: a study of trends and costs. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(4):2106–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Bustos R, Mangano A, Gheza F, et al. Robotic-assisted roux-en-Y gastric bypass: learning curve assessment using cumulative sum and literature review. Bariatr Surg Pract Patient Care. 2019;14:95–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    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  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Smeenk R. Van ‘t Hof G, Elsten E, Feskens P. The results of 100 robotic versus 100 laparoscopic gastric bypass procedures: a single high volume centre experience. Obes Surg. 2016;26(6):1266–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Starnes CC, Gochnour DC, Hall B, et al. The economy of motion of the totally robotic gastric bypass: technique, learning curve, and outcomes of a fellowship-trained, robotic bariatric surgeon. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2015;25(5):411–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Ayloo S, Fernandes E, Choudhury N. Learning curve and robot set-up/operative times in singly docked totally robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(5):1629–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Kane E, Schlosser K, Martin M, et al. A5048 - long-term outcomes of totally robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a ten-year series. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2016;12(7):S88–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Celio AC, Kasten KR, Schwoerer A, et al. Perioperative safety of laparoscopic versus robotic gastric bypass: a propensity matched analysis of early experience. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2017;13(11):1847–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Varban OA, CainNielsen AH, Wood MH, et al. Utilization and outcomes among adopters and abandoners of robotics in bariatric surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2018;227(4):e4–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David M. Parker.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

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

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dudash, M., Kuhn, J., Dove, J. et al. The Longitudinal Efficiency of Robotic Surgery: an MBSAQIP Propensity Matched 4-Year Comparison of Robotic and Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery. OBES SURG 30, 3706–3713 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-020-04712-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Operative time
  • Robotic surgery
  • Bariatric surgery
  • Gastric bypass
  • Gastric sleeve
  • MBSAQIP
  • Learning curve