Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Obesity Surgery 2/2021

01-02-2021 | Sleeve Gastrectomy | Original Contributions

Trends in Utilization and Perioperative Outcomes in Robotic-assisted Bariatric surgery using the MBSAQIP database: A 4-Year Analysis

Authors: Thomas Scarritt, Chiu-Hsieh Hsu, Felipe B. Maegawa, Alfonso E. Ayala, Matthew Mobily, Iman Ghaderi

Published in: Obesity Surgery | Issue 2/2021

Login to get access

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.
Literature
1.
go back to reference George EI, Brand TC, LaPorta A, et al. Origins of Robotic Surgery: From Skepticism to Standard of Care. JSLS. 2018;22(4) George EI, Brand TC, LaPorta A, et al. Origins of Robotic Surgery: From Skepticism to Standard of Care. JSLS. 2018;22(4)
2.
go back to reference Himpens JLG, Cadiere GB. Telesurgical laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 1998; Himpens JLG, Cadiere GB. Telesurgical laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 1998;
3.
go back to reference Leal Ghezzi T, Campos Corleta O. 30 Years of Robotic Surgery. World J Surg. 2016;40(10):2550–7.CrossRef Leal Ghezzi T, Campos Corleta O. 30 Years of Robotic Surgery. World J Surg. 2016;40(10):2550–7.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Nik-Ahd F, Souders CP, Zhao H, et al. Robotic urologic surgery: trends in litigation over the last decade. J Robot Surg. 2019; Nik-Ahd F, Souders CP, Zhao H, et al. Robotic urologic surgery: trends in litigation over the last decade. J Robot Surg. 2019;
8.
go back to reference Mikhail D, Sarcona J, Mekhail M, et al. Urologic Robotic Surgery. Surgical Clinics. 2020;100(2):361–78.PubMed Mikhail D, Sarcona J, Mekhail M, et al. Urologic Robotic Surgery. Surgical Clinics. 2020;100(2):361–78.PubMed
9.
go back to reference Cooper MAIA, Lyu H, Makary MA. Underreporting of robotic surgery complications. J Healthc Qual. 2015;37(2):133–8.CrossRef Cooper MAIA, Lyu H, Makary MA. Underreporting of robotic surgery complications. J Healthc Qual. 2015;37(2):133–8.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference 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-. 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-.
13.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference 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; 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;
20.
go back to reference 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; 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;
21.
go back to reference Olavarria OA, Bernardi K, Shah SK, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: multicenter, blinded randomized controlled trial. bmj. 2020;370 Olavarria OA, Bernardi K, Shah SK, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: multicenter, blinded randomized controlled trial. bmj. 2020;370
22.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Wright JD. Robotic-Assisted Surgery: Balancing Evidence and Implementation. JAMA. 2017;318(16):1545–7.CrossRef Wright JD. Robotic-Assisted Surgery: Balancing Evidence and Implementation. JAMA. 2017;318(16):1545–7.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Trends in Utilization and Perioperative Outcomes in Robotic-assisted Bariatric surgery using the MBSAQIP database: A 4-Year Analysis
Authors
Thomas Scarritt
Chiu-Hsieh Hsu
Felipe B. Maegawa
Alfonso E. Ayala
Matthew Mobily
Iman Ghaderi
Publication date
01-02-2021
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Obesity Surgery / Issue 2/2021
Print ISSN: 0960-8923
Electronic ISSN: 1708-0428
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-020-05055-5

Other articles of this Issue 2/2021

Obesity Surgery 2/2021 Go to the issue