Department of Surgery, The George Washington University Hospital, 900 23rd St NW, Washington, DC, 20037, USA.
Department of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Surg Endosc. 2019 May;33(5):1600-1612. doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6422-7. Epub 2018 Sep 17.
Robotic-assisted bariatric surgery is part of the armamentarium in many bariatric centers. However, limited data correlate the robotic benefits to with clinical outcomes. This study compares 30-day outcomes between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic procedures for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG).
Using the 2015-2016 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database, patients between18- and 65-year-old were included. To adjust for potential confounders, 1:1 propensity-score matching (PSM) was performed using 22 preoperative characteristics. Second PSM analysis was performed adding operative time and conversion rate.
269,923 patients underwent SG (n = 190,494) or RYGB (n = 79,429). The operative time was significantly longer in the Robotic-assisted compared to laparoscopic approach either for SG (102.58 ± 46 vs. 73.38 ± 36; P < 0.001) or for RYGB (158.29 ± 65 vs. 120.17 ± 56; P < 0.001). In the SG cohort (12,877 matched cases), the robotic approach showed significant reduction of postoperative bleeding (0.16% vs. 0.43%; P < 0.001) and strictures (0.19% vs. 0.33%; P = 0.04) with similar results in the other 30-day outcomes in both analyses. Similarly, for the RYGB cohort (5780 matched cases), the robotic approach showed significantly fewer requirements for blood transfusions (0.64% vs. 1.16%; P = 0.004) with no statistically different results for the other's outcomes. Conversely, when adding operative time and conversion rate to the PSM analysis, the robotic platform showed significantly shorter length of stay (2.12 ± 1.9 vs. 2.30 ± 3.1 days; P < 0.001), reduction of anastomotic leak (0.52% vs. 0.92%; P = 0.01), renal complications (0.16% vs. 0.38%; P = 0.004), and venous thromboembolism (0.24% vs. 0.52%; P = 0.02).
Our findings show that postoperative bleeding and blood transfusion are significantly reduced with the robotic platform, and after correcting for all factors including operative time, the robotic-assisted approach is associated with better postoperative outcomes especially for RYGB.
机器人辅助减重手术是许多减重中心的治疗手段之一。然而,有限的数据将机器人的优势与临床结果相关联。本研究比较了机器人辅助与腹腔镜 Roux-en-Y 胃旁路术(RYGB)和袖状胃切除术(SG)的 30 天结果。
使用 2015-2016 年代谢和减重外科认证和质量改进计划(MBSAQIP)数据库,纳入 18 至 65 岁的患者。为了调整潜在的混杂因素,使用 22 项术前特征进行了 1:1 倾向评分匹配(PSM)。进行了第二次 PSM 分析,加入了手术时间和转化率。
269923 例患者接受了 SG(n=190494)或 RYGB(n=79429)。机器人辅助组的手术时间明显长于腹腔镜组,无论是 SG(102.58±46 比 73.38±36;P<0.001)还是 RYGB(158.29±65 比 120.17±56;P<0.001)。在 SG 队列(12877 例匹配病例)中,机器人组术后出血(0.16%比 0.43%;P<0.001)和狭窄(0.19%比 0.33%;P=0.04)明显减少,在这两种分析的其他 30 天结果中均有类似结果。同样,对于 RYGB 队列(5780 例匹配病例),机器人组输血需求明显减少(0.64%比 1.16%;P=0.004),其他结果无统计学差异。相反,当将手术时间和转化率添加到 PSM 分析中时,机器人平台的住院时间明显缩短(2.12±1.9 比 2.30±3.1 天;P<0.001),吻合口漏的发生率降低(0.52%比 0.92%;P=0.01),肾并发症(0.16%比 0.38%;P=0.004)和静脉血栓栓塞(0.24%比 0.52%;P=0.02)。
我们的研究结果表明,机器人平台可显著减少术后出血和输血,在考虑包括手术时间在内的所有因素后,机器人辅助方法与更好的术后结果相关,尤其是对于 RYGB。