University of Nebraska Medical Center, Department of Surgery, General Surgery, Omaha, NE, USA.
University of Nebraska Medical Center, Department of Surgery, General Surgery, Omaha, NE, USA; Center for Advanced Surgical Technology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.
Am J Surg. 2020 Dec;220(6):1445-1450. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.08.040. Epub 2020 Aug 31.
This study sought to evaluate surgical outcomes, cost, and opiate utilization between patients who underwent either laparoscopic or robotic-assisted bariatric procedures, including sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB).
The Vizient administrative database was queried for patients admitted with mild to moderate severity of illness scores who underwent elective laparoscopic (L) and robotic-assisted (R) SG or RYGB from October 2015 through December 2018. Patients were grouped according to surgical approach for each bariatric procedure. Rates of overall complications, mortality, 30-day readmission, LOS, total direct cost, and opiate utilization were collected. Comparisons were performed within each bariatric procedure, between laparoscopic and robotic approaches, using IBM SPSS v.25.0, α = 0.05.
For SG, a total of 84,034 patients were included (LSG:N = 78,405; RSG:N = 5639). There was no significant difference in rates of overall complications (LSG:0.5%, RSG:0.4%; p = 0.872), mortality (LSG:<0.01%, RSG:<0.01%; p = 0.660), and 30-day readmissions (LSG: 0.5%, RSG:0.5%; p = 0.524). Average LOS was 1.65 ± 1.07 days for LSG and 1.77 ± 1.29 days for RSG (p=<0.001). Robotic approach had a significantly higher direct cost (LSG: $6505 ± 3,200, RSG: $8018 ± 3849; p=<0.001). Rate of opiate use was 97.3% for both groups (p=>0.05). For RYGB, 36,039 patients met the inclusion criteria (LRYGB:N = 33,053; RRYGB:N = 2986). There was no significant difference in rates of overall complications (LRYGB: 1.4%, RRYGB:1.3%; p = 0.414) or mortality (LRGYB:<0.01%, RRYGB: <0.01%; p = 0.646). Robotic approach was associated with a lower 30-day readmission rate (LRYGB: 1.3%, RRYGB:<0.01%; p=<0.001). Average LOS was 2.1 ± 2.18 days for LRYGB and 2.18 ± 3.78 days for RRYGB (p = 0.075). Robotic approach had a significantly higher direct cost (LRYGB:$8564 ± 5,350, RRYGB: $10,325 ± 7689; p=<0.001) and rate of opiate use (LRYG:95.75%, RRYGB:96.85%; p = 0.005).
Our study found the direct cost of RSG to be significantly higher than LSG with no added clinical benefit, therefore, universal use of the robotic platform for routine SG cases remains difficult to justify. While the direct cost of RRYGB was also higher than LRYGB, the significantly lower readmission rate associated with robotic approach may help to offset the financial discrepancy and warrant its use.
本研究旨在评估接受腹腔镜或机器人辅助减重手术(包括袖状胃切除术[SG]或 Roux-en-Y 胃旁路术[RYGB])的患者的手术结果、成本和阿片类药物使用情况,并比较这些患者与接受腹腔镜(L)和机器人辅助(R)SG 或 RYGB 的患者。
从 2015 年 10 月至 2018 年 12 月,使用 Vizient 行政数据库检索患有轻度至中度疾病严重程度评分的患者,这些患者接受了选择性腹腔镜(L)和机器人辅助(R)SG 或 RYGB。根据每种减重手术的手术方法对患者进行分组。收集总并发症发生率、死亡率、30 天再入院率、住院时间、总直接费用和阿片类药物使用情况。使用 IBM SPSS v.25.0 对每种减重手术内、腹腔镜和机器人方法之间进行比较,α=0.05。
对于 SG,共纳入 84034 例患者(LSG:N=78405;RSG:N=5639)。总体并发症发生率(LSG:0.5%,RSG:0.4%;p=0.872)、死亡率(LSG:<0.01%,RSG:<0.01%;p=0.660)和 30 天再入院率(LSG:0.5%,RSG:0.5%;p=0.524)无显著差异。LSG 的平均住院时间为 1.65±1.07 天,RSG 为 1.77±1.29 天(p<0.001)。机器人方法的直接成本显著更高(LSG:6505±3200,RSG:8018±3849;p<0.001)。两组阿片类药物使用率均为 97.3%(p>0.05)。对于 RYGB,有 36039 例患者符合纳入标准(LRYGB:N=33053;RRYGB:N=2986)。总体并发症发生率(LRYGB:1.4%,RRYGB:1.3%;p=0.414)或死亡率(LRGYB:<0.01%,RRYGB:<0.01%;p=0.646)无显著差异。机器人方法与较低的 30 天再入院率相关(LRYGB:1.3%,RRYGB:<0.01%;p<0.001)。LSGYB 的平均住院时间为 2.1±2.18 天,RRYGB 为 2.18±3.78 天(p=0.075)。机器人方法的直接成本显著更高(LRYGB:8564±5350,RRYGB:10325±7689;p<0.001)和阿片类药物使用率更高(LRYG:95.75%,RRYGB:96.85%;p=0.005)。
我们的研究发现,RSG 的直接成本明显高于 LSG,且没有额外的临床获益,因此,普遍使用机器人平台进行常规 SG 手术仍然难以证明其合理性。虽然 RRYGB 的直接成本也高于 LRYGB,但机器人方法相关的再入院率显著降低,可能有助于抵消财务差异,并证明其使用的合理性。