Robotic Bariatric Surgery: A Critical Review of Clinical Outcomes, Learning Curves, and Economic Considerations.

IF 1.2 3区 医学 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Nikheel Patel, Michael A Glaysher, Nicolas Carter, Gijs van Boxel
{"title":"Robotic Bariatric Surgery: A Critical Review of Clinical Outcomes, Learning Curves, and Economic Considerations.","authors":"Nikheel Patel, Michael A Glaysher, Nicolas Carter, Gijs van Boxel","doi":"10.1159/dsu/acoag003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Robotic platforms have been increasingly adopted in bariatric surgery with the aim of overcoming technical limitations of conventional laparoscopy, particularly during complex reconstructive steps such as intracorporeal suturing and multi-quadrant dissection. Despite the rapid expansion of robotic bariatric surgery (RBS), uncertainty remains regarding its clinical value relative to established laparoscopic techniques.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>This review critically evaluates the current evidence comparing robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RRYGB) and robotic sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) with their laparoscopic counterparts. Recent meta-analyses and large registry studies demonstrate broadly comparable perioperative outcomes between RRYGB and laparoscopic RYGB (LRYGB) across major clinical endpoints. Modest advantages for RRYGB have been reported in selected intraoperative and postoperative measures, including reduced anastomotic stricture rates, reduced marginal ulceration, reduced blood loss, lower conversion rates, and improved recovery in higher-risk patient groups such as in revisional surgery and high-BMI patients. However, these findings are inconsistent and largely derived from retrospective observational studies with heterogeneous methodology and limited long-term follow-up. In contrast, current evidence does not demonstrate clear clinical advantages for RSG over laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), and in fact suggest inferiority in terms of short-term outcomes. Although temporal analyses suggest improvement in robotic outcomes over time, similar trends have been noted in laparoscopic cohorts, suggesting broader improvements in perioperative bariatric care. Economic analyses consistently report higher procedural costs for robotic approaches, driven primarily by operative time and consumable expenditure, although these differences may decrease with transition to totally robotic techniques, increasing institutional experience and workflow optimisation in high-volume centres.</p><p><strong>Key messages: </strong>Robotic bariatric surgery achieves outcomes comparable to laparoscopy but currently demonstrates selective advantages primarily in complex procedures such as RYGB and revisional surgery. The role of robotics in routine sleeve gastrectomy remains uncertain. Higher procedural costs and limited high-quality comparative data spanning different time periods continue to limit the ability to draw definitive conclusions. Future research should prioritise multicentre randomised trials, standardised reporting frameworks, and comprehensive economic evaluation across different emerging robotic platforms with consideration of learning curve effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":11241,"journal":{"name":"Digestive Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digestive Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/dsu/acoag003","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Robotic platforms have been increasingly adopted in bariatric surgery with the aim of overcoming technical limitations of conventional laparoscopy, particularly during complex reconstructive steps such as intracorporeal suturing and multi-quadrant dissection. Despite the rapid expansion of robotic bariatric surgery (RBS), uncertainty remains regarding its clinical value relative to established laparoscopic techniques.

Summary: This review critically evaluates the current evidence comparing robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RRYGB) and robotic sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) with their laparoscopic counterparts. Recent meta-analyses and large registry studies demonstrate broadly comparable perioperative outcomes between RRYGB and laparoscopic RYGB (LRYGB) across major clinical endpoints. Modest advantages for RRYGB have been reported in selected intraoperative and postoperative measures, including reduced anastomotic stricture rates, reduced marginal ulceration, reduced blood loss, lower conversion rates, and improved recovery in higher-risk patient groups such as in revisional surgery and high-BMI patients. However, these findings are inconsistent and largely derived from retrospective observational studies with heterogeneous methodology and limited long-term follow-up. In contrast, current evidence does not demonstrate clear clinical advantages for RSG over laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), and in fact suggest inferiority in terms of short-term outcomes. Although temporal analyses suggest improvement in robotic outcomes over time, similar trends have been noted in laparoscopic cohorts, suggesting broader improvements in perioperative bariatric care. Economic analyses consistently report higher procedural costs for robotic approaches, driven primarily by operative time and consumable expenditure, although these differences may decrease with transition to totally robotic techniques, increasing institutional experience and workflow optimisation in high-volume centres.

Key messages: Robotic bariatric surgery achieves outcomes comparable to laparoscopy but currently demonstrates selective advantages primarily in complex procedures such as RYGB and revisional surgery. The role of robotics in routine sleeve gastrectomy remains uncertain. Higher procedural costs and limited high-quality comparative data spanning different time periods continue to limit the ability to draw definitive conclusions. Future research should prioritise multicentre randomised trials, standardised reporting frameworks, and comprehensive economic evaluation across different emerging robotic platforms with consideration of learning curve effects.

机器人减肥手术:临床结果、学习曲线和经济考虑的重要回顾。
这篇综述批判性地评价了机器人Roux-en-Y胃旁路术(RRYGB)和机器人袖胃切除术(RSG)与腹腔镜手术相比的现有证据。最近的荟萃分析和大型注册研究表明,RRYGB和腹腔镜RYGB (LRYGB)在主要临床终点的围手术期结果具有广泛的可比性。RRYGB在一些术中和术后措施中有一定的优势,包括减少吻合口狭窄率、减少边缘溃疡、减少失血、降低转归率和改善修复手术和高bmi患者等高危患者群体的恢复。然而,这些发现是不一致的,并且主要来自采用异质方法的回顾性观察性研究和有限的长期随访。相比之下,目前的证据并没有明确表明RSG优于腹腔镜袖胃切除术(LSG)的临床优势,事实上,就短期结果而言,RSG可能存在劣势。虽然时间分析表明随着时间的推移,机器人的结果有所改善,但在腹腔镜队列中也注意到类似的趋势,这表明围手术期减肥护理得到了更广泛的改善。经济分析一致报告机器人方法的程序成本较高,主要是由操作时间和消耗性支出驱动的,尽管这些差异可能会随着向完全机器人技术的过渡而减少,增加机构经验和高容量中心的工作流程优化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Digestive Surgery
Digestive Surgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
3.70%
发文量
25
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: ''Digestive Surgery'' presents a comprehensive overview in the field of gastrointestinal surgery. Interdisciplinary in scope, the journal keeps the specialist aware of advances in all fields that contribute to improvements in the diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal disease. Particular emphasis is given to articles that evaluate not only recent clinical developments, especially clinical trials and technical innovations such as new endoscopic and laparoscopic procedures, but also relevant translational research. Each contribution is carefully aligned with the need of the digestive surgeon. Thus, the journal is an important component of the continuing medical education of surgeons who want their practice to benefit from a familiarity with new knowledge in all its dimensions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书