Abstract:
Purpose:
Robotic-assisted surgery has become increasingly popular across surgical subspecialties. We aimed to analyze trends in the national utilization and outcomes in bariatric surgery.
Materials and Methods:
The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP®) data for 2015-2018 was queried. We included robotic-assisted sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), adjustable gastric band (AGB), biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD-DS), and revisional cases. The Kruskal–Wallis test or Wilcoxon rank-sum were used for comparing continuous variables and Cochran-Armitage trend analysis for categorical variables when comparing years, or with Fisher’s Exact Test when directly comparing categories.
Results:
Of 760,076 bariatric cases performed between 2015 and 2018, 7.4% with robotic and 90.4% with laparoscopic approach. SG constituted 61.3% of robotic volume. Utilization of robotic surgery increased 1.96-fold; SG represented the most substantial increase of 2.16-fold, followed by a 1.53-fold in RYGB. The 30-day readmission and re-intervention rates decreased from 5.63% to 4.78% (p<0.01), and 2.31% to 1.46% (p<0.01), respectively. The overall leak rate improved from 0.64% to 0.39% (p=0.01). Mortality and re-operations remained statistically unchanged. When compared to laparoscopic approach, the operative time were significantly longer in the robotic group. Regarding postoperative outcomes, when adjusted for patient characteristics, there were no differences between two approaches except a higher leak rate in robotic group in 2015.
Conclusion:
A steady increase in robotic bariatric surgery is apparent. While the operative time remains significantly longer in the robotic group, trends indicate improvement in key quality metrics and patient outcomes as utilization increases.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
George EI, Brand TC, LaPorta A, et al. Origins of Robotic Surgery: From Skepticism to Standard of Care. JSLS. 2018;22(4)
Himpens JLG, Cadiere GB. Telesurgical laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 1998;
Leal Ghezzi T, Campos Corleta O. 30 Years of Robotic Surgery. World J Surg. 2016;40(10):2550–7.
Stewart CL, Ituarte PHG, Melstrom KA, et al. Robotic surgery trends in general surgical oncology from the National Inpatient Sample. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(8):2591–601.
Jayakumaran J, Patel SD, Gangrade BK, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopy in reproductive surgery: a contemporary review. J Robot Surg. 2017;11(2):97–109.
Kamel MK, Villena-Vargas J, Rahouma M, et al. National trends and perioperative outcomes of robotic resection of thymic tumours in the United States: a propensity matching comparison with open and video-assisted thoracoscopic approaches. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019;56(4):762–9.
Nik-Ahd F, Souders CP, Zhao H, et al. Robotic urologic surgery: trends in litigation over the last decade. J Robot Surg. 2019;
Mikhail D, Sarcona J, Mekhail M, et al. Urologic Robotic Surgery. Surgical Clinics. 2020;100(2):361–78.
Cooper MAIA, Lyu H, Makary MA. Underreporting of robotic surgery complications. J Healthc Qual. 2015;37(2):133–8.
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.
Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP®).Available at: https://www.facs.org/search/bariatric-surgery-centers?allresults= Accessed June 07,2020.
Sheetz KH, Claflin J, Dimick JB. Trends in the Adoption of Robotic Surgery for Common Surgical Procedures. JAMA network open. 2020 Jan 3;3(1):e1918911-.
Barbash GI, Glied SA. New technology and health care costs--the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(8):701–4.
Rausa E, Bonavina L, Asti E, et al. Rate of Death and Complications in Laparoscopic and Open Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass. A Meta-analysis and Meta-regression Analysis on 69,494 Patients. Obes Surg. 2016;26(8):1956–63.
Tarr ME, Brancato SJ, Cunkelman JA, et al. Comparison of postural ergonomics between laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy: a pilot study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22(2):234–8.
Lusch A, Bucur PL, Menhadji AD, et al. Evaluation of the impact of three-dimensional vision on laparoscopic performance. J Endourol. 2014;28(2):261–6.
Moore LJ, Wilson MR, Waine E, et al. Robotic technology results in faster and more robust surgical skill acquisition than traditional laparoscopy. J Robot Surg. 2015;9:67–73.
Sebastian R, Howell MH, Chang KH, 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.
Pastrana M, Stoltzfus J, Almandini A, et al. Evolution of outcomes of robotic bariatric surgery: first report based on MBSAQIP database. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2020;
Muaddi H, Hafid ME, Choi WJ, et al. Clinical Outcomes of Robotic Surgery Compared to Conventional Surgical Approaches (Laparoscopic or Open): A Systematic Overview of Reviews. Annals of Surgery. 2020;
Olavarria OA, Bernardi K, Shah SK, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: multicenter, blinded randomized controlled trial. bmj. 2020;370
Kim MJ, Park SC, Park JW, et al. Robot-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Phase II Open Label Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Surg. 2018;267(2):243–51.
Wright JD. Robotic-Assisted Surgery: Balancing Evidence and Implementation. JAMA. 2017;318(16):1545–7.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical Approval Statement:
For this type of study formal consent is not required.
Informed Consent Statement:
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
About this article
Cite this article
Scarritt, T., Hsu, CH., Maegawa, F.B. et al. Trends in Utilization and Perioperative Outcomes in Robotic-assisted Bariatric surgery using the MBSAQIP database: A 4-Year Analysis. OBES SURG 31, 854–861 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-020-05055-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-020-05055-5