Abstract
Bariatric surgery is considered the main treatment option for patients with severe obesity. The objective of our study is to compare intra- and postoperative outcomes between the robotic and laparoscopic approaches within the sleeve gastrectomy (SG), duodenal switch (DS), and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB).PURPOSEBariatric surgery is considered the main treatment option for patients with severe obesity. The objective of our study is to compare intra- and postoperative outcomes between the robotic and laparoscopic approaches within the sleeve gastrectomy (SG), duodenal switch (DS), and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB).The data from the MBSAQIP were collected for patients who underwent SG, DS, and RYGB between 2015 and 2021. The postoperative and procedural outcomes including 30-day morbidity and mortality as well as operation length were analyzed using regression models.MATERIALS AND METHODSThe data from the MBSAQIP were collected for patients who underwent SG, DS, and RYGB between 2015 and 2021. The postoperative and procedural outcomes including 30-day morbidity and mortality as well as operation length were analyzed using regression models.Our analysis included 1,178,886 surgeries with SG comprising the majority (70%) followed by RYGB (28%) and DS (1%). Other than a higher adjusted risk of unplanned reoperation for robotic RYGB (relative risk (RR) 1.07) and a statistically significant higher rate of postoperative wound disruption in robotic SG for robotic surgery (RR 1.56), there were no statistically significant between-approach differences including infection, wound disruption, death, or reoperation for DS, RYGB, or SG. Our data showed no significant difference in anastomotic leak rate between laparoscopic and robotic approaches in either the DS (p = 0.521) or RYGB (p = 0.800) procedures. Across our study period, the median operation lengths decreased significantly per year for both the robotic SG and DS.RESULTSOur analysis included 1,178,886 surgeries with SG comprising the majority (70%) followed by RYGB (28%) and DS (1%). Other than a higher adjusted risk of unplanned reoperation for robotic RYGB (relative risk (RR) 1.07) and a statistically significant higher rate of postoperative wound disruption in robotic SG for robotic surgery (RR 1.56), there were no statistically significant between-approach differences including infection, wound disruption, death, or reoperation for DS, RYGB, or SG. Our data showed no significant difference in anastomotic leak rate between laparoscopic and robotic approaches in either the DS (p = 0.521) or RYGB (p = 0.800) procedures. Across our study period, the median operation lengths decreased significantly per year for both the robotic SG and DS.Robotic and laparoscopic bariatric surgical procedures have statistically similar 30-day patient outcomes. Robotic bariatric procedures do have significantly longer median operative times than laparoscopic procedures. The decision to use a robotic approach or laparoscopic approach should be made based upon surgeon experience and possibly cost.CONCLUSIONSRobotic and laparoscopic bariatric surgical procedures have statistically similar 30-day patient outcomes. Robotic bariatric procedures do have significantly longer median operative times than laparoscopic procedures. The decision to use a robotic approach or laparoscopic approach should be made based upon surgeon experience and possibly cost.