William Hope, William Gourash, Kristine Ruppert, Ramesh Ramanathan
{"title":"Robotic-Assisted Bariatric Surgery Compared to Standard Laparoscopy-Utilization Trends, Outcomes, and Operative Times: MBSAQIP Data from 2018 to 2021.","authors":"William Hope, William Gourash, Kristine Ruppert, Ramesh Ramanathan","doi":"10.1007/s11695-025-08308-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Evaluation of the utilization and outcomes of robotic-assisted bariatric surgery (RA-BS) is needed. This study investigates the current utilization trends and outcomes of robotic-assisted (RA) versus laparoscopic primary bariatric surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>RA and laparoscopic primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) were compared using the 2018-2021 MBSAQIP participant user data files. A total of 678,357 patients were propensity matched 1:1 based on 12 variables. A total of 198,630 patients were included in the study group: 145,858 matched to SG and 52,772 to RYGB.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 2018 to 2021, there was an increase in the percentage of RA-BS procedures from 10 to 25%. L-SG had significantly lower rates of superficial infection (0.22% vs. 0.29%), organ space infection (0.18% vs. 0.24%), post-operative transfusion (0.46% vs. 0.68%), gastrointestinal bleed (0.19% vs. 0.26), and reoperation (0.63% vs. 0.74%) compared to RA-SG. RA-RYGB had significantly lower rates of superficial infection (0.37% vs. 0.8%), post-operative transfusion (0.75% vs. 1.1%), and gastrointestinal bleed (0.6% vs. 0.9%) compared to L-RYGB. There were statistically significant decreases in operative time, and 30-day outcomes of reoperation, intervention, and readmission for both laparoscopic and RA-BS over time from 2018 to 2021.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was a progressive increase in the number and percentage of RA procedures. Most perioperative outcomes were statistically equivalent. RA-RYGB was associated with lower complication rates of infection and bleeding, while RA-SG was associated with higher rates of infection, bleeding, and reoperation. Continued research is needed to understand the efficacy and clinical significance of RA-BS.</p>","PeriodicalId":19460,"journal":{"name":"Obesity Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Obesity Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-025-08308-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Evaluation of the utilization and outcomes of robotic-assisted bariatric surgery (RA-BS) is needed. This study investigates the current utilization trends and outcomes of robotic-assisted (RA) versus laparoscopic primary bariatric surgery.
Methods: RA and laparoscopic primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) were compared using the 2018-2021 MBSAQIP participant user data files. A total of 678,357 patients were propensity matched 1:1 based on 12 variables. A total of 198,630 patients were included in the study group: 145,858 matched to SG and 52,772 to RYGB.
Results: From 2018 to 2021, there was an increase in the percentage of RA-BS procedures from 10 to 25%. L-SG had significantly lower rates of superficial infection (0.22% vs. 0.29%), organ space infection (0.18% vs. 0.24%), post-operative transfusion (0.46% vs. 0.68%), gastrointestinal bleed (0.19% vs. 0.26), and reoperation (0.63% vs. 0.74%) compared to RA-SG. RA-RYGB had significantly lower rates of superficial infection (0.37% vs. 0.8%), post-operative transfusion (0.75% vs. 1.1%), and gastrointestinal bleed (0.6% vs. 0.9%) compared to L-RYGB. There were statistically significant decreases in operative time, and 30-day outcomes of reoperation, intervention, and readmission for both laparoscopic and RA-BS over time from 2018 to 2021.
Conclusion: There was a progressive increase in the number and percentage of RA procedures. Most perioperative outcomes were statistically equivalent. RA-RYGB was associated with lower complication rates of infection and bleeding, while RA-SG was associated with higher rates of infection, bleeding, and reoperation. Continued research is needed to understand the efficacy and clinical significance of RA-BS.
背景:需要评估机器人辅助减肥手术(RA-BS)的使用和结果。本研究调查了机器人辅助(RA)与腹腔镜原发性减肥手术的当前使用趋势和结果。方法:使用2018-2021 MBSAQIP参与者用户数据文件,对RA和腹腔镜初级Roux-en-Y胃旁路术(RYGB)和袖式胃切除术(SG)进行比较。共有678,357例患者基于12个变量进行1:1倾向匹配。研究组共纳入198,630例患者:145,858例与SG匹配,52,772例与RYGB匹配。结果:从2018年到2021年,RA-BS手术的比例从10%增加到25%。与RA-SG相比,L-SG的浅表感染(0.22% vs. 0.29%)、器官间隙感染(0.18% vs. 0.24%)、术后输血(0.46% vs. 0.68%)、胃肠道出血(0.19% vs. 0.26)和再手术(0.63% vs. 0.74%)的发生率显著低于RA-SG。与L-RYGB相比,RA-RYGB的浅表感染(0.37% vs. 0.8%)、术后输血(0.75% vs. 1.1%)和胃肠道出血(0.6% vs. 0.9%)的发生率显著低于L-RYGB。从2018年到2021年,腹腔镜和RA-BS的手术时间、再手术、干预和再入院的30天结果均有统计学意义上的显著减少。结论:RA手术的数量和百分比逐渐增加。大多数围手术期结果在统计学上是相同的。RA-RYGB与较低的感染和出血并发症发生率相关,而RA-SG与较高的感染、出血和再手术发生率相关。RA-BS的疗效和临床意义有待进一步研究。
期刊介绍:
Obesity Surgery is the official journal of the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and metabolic disorders (IFSO). A journal for bariatric/metabolic surgeons, Obesity Surgery provides an international, interdisciplinary forum for communicating the latest research, surgical and laparoscopic techniques, for treatment of massive obesity and metabolic disorders. Topics covered include original research, clinical reports, current status, guidelines, historical notes, invited commentaries, letters to the editor, medicolegal issues, meeting abstracts, modern surgery/technical innovations, new concepts, reviews, scholarly presentations and opinions.
Obesity Surgery benefits surgeons performing obesity/metabolic surgery, general surgeons and surgical residents, endoscopists, anesthetists, support staff, nurses, dietitians, psychiatrists, psychologists, plastic surgeons, internists including endocrinologists and diabetologists, nutritional scientists, and those dealing with eating disorders.