Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy 9/2016

10.12.2015

Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a retrospective, single-center study of early perioperative outcomes at a community hospital

verfasst von: Arif Ahmad, Jared D. Carleton, Zoha F. Ahmad, Ashish Agarwala

Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy | Ausgabe 9/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

The purpose of this study was to compare the operative and early perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures performed in a community hospital setting.

Methods

The study was a chart review and analysis of the early perioperative outcomes of a total of 345 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures performed by a single surgeon in a community hospital setting from January 2011 to October 2014. Of these, 173 procedures were performed laparoscopically and 172 were performed with robotic assistance utilizing the daVinci® surgical platform. Factors such as baseline patient characteristics, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), conversions to open procedure, complication rates, adverse events, length of stay (LOS), and return to the operating room for the two groups were retrospectively analyzed from a prospectively maintained database. Student’s t test with unequal variances was used for statistical analysis, and a p value <0.05 was used for significance.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences in complication rates, EBL, or LOS between the two groups. There was a significant difference between the total operative times (135.30 ± 37.60 min for the laparoscopic procedure versus 154.84 ± 38.44 min for the robotic procedure, p < 0.05). There were no adverse intraoperative events, conversions to open procedures, leaks, strictures, returns to the operating room within 30 days, or mortalities in either group.

Conclusion

Our study, which is the first of its kind to analyze the operative and early perioperative outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures in the US community hospital setting, indicates that both are comparable in terms of safety, efficacy, and operative and early perioperative outcomes.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Barbash G, Glied S (2010) New technology and health care costs—the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363:701–704CrossRefPubMed Barbash G, Glied S (2010) New technology and health care costs—the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363:701–704CrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Garza U, Echeverria A, Galvani C (2012). Robotic-assisted bariatric surgery. Advanced bariatric and metabolic surgery, pp 297–316 Garza U, Echeverria A, Galvani C (2012). Robotic-assisted bariatric surgery. Advanced bariatric and metabolic surgery, pp 297–316
3.
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Hagen M, Pugin F, Chassot G et al (2012) Reducing cost of surgery by avoiding complications: the model of robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Obes Surg 22(1):52–61CrossRefPubMed Hagen M, Pugin F, Chassot G et al (2012) Reducing cost of surgery by avoiding complications: the model of robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Obes Surg 22(1):52–61CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Camarillo B, Krummel T, Salisbury J (2004) Robotic technology in surgery: past, present, and future. Am J Surg 188(4):2–15CrossRef Camarillo B, Krummel T, Salisbury J (2004) Robotic technology in surgery: past, present, and future. Am J Surg 188(4):2–15CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Bailey J, Hayden J, Davis P et al (2014) Robotic versus laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in obese adults ages 18 to 65 years: a systematic review and economic analysis. Surg Endosc 28:414–426CrossRefPubMed Bailey J, Hayden J, Davis P et al (2014) Robotic versus laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in obese adults ages 18 to 65 years: a systematic review and economic analysis. Surg Endosc 28:414–426CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Yu SC, Clapp B, Lee MJ et al (2006) Robotic assistance provides excellent outcomes during the learning curve for laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: results from 100 robotic-assisted gastric bypasses. Am J Surg 192(6):746–749CrossRef Yu SC, Clapp B, Lee MJ et al (2006) Robotic assistance provides excellent outcomes during the learning curve for laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: results from 100 robotic-assisted gastric bypasses. Am J Surg 192(6):746–749CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Yu HY, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR et al (2012) Use, costs, and comparative effectiveness of robotic assisted, laparoscopic and open urologic surgery. Eur Urol 61:1239–1244CrossRefPubMed Yu HY, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR et al (2012) Use, costs, and comparative effectiveness of robotic assisted, laparoscopic and open urologic surgery. Eur Urol 61:1239–1244CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Pasic RP, Rizzo JA, Fang H et al (2010) Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17:730–738CrossRefPubMed Pasic RP, Rizzo JA, Fang H et al (2010) Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17:730–738CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Hubens G, Balliu L, Ruppert M et al (2008) Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedure performed with the da Vinci robot system: is it worth it? Surg Endosc 22:1690–1696CrossRefPubMed Hubens G, Balliu L, Ruppert M et al (2008) Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedure performed with the da Vinci robot system: is it worth it? Surg Endosc 22:1690–1696CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN et al (2013) Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA 309:689–698CrossRefPubMed Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN et al (2013) Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA 309:689–698CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Breitenstein S, Nocito A, Puhan M et al (2008) Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a case-matched control study. Ann Surg 247(6):987–993CrossRefPubMed Breitenstein S, Nocito A, Puhan M et al (2008) Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a case-matched control study. Ann Surg 247(6):987–993CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Toro J, Lin E, Patel A (2015) Review of robotics in foregut and bariatric surgery. Surg Endosc 29(1):1–8CrossRefPubMed Toro J, Lin E, Patel A (2015) Review of robotics in foregut and bariatric surgery. Surg Endosc 29(1):1–8CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Horgan S, Vanuno D (2001) Robots in laparoscopic surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 11(6):415–419CrossRefPubMed Horgan S, Vanuno D (2001) Robots in laparoscopic surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 11(6):415–419CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Jin L, Ibrahim A, Newman N et al (2011) Robotic surgery claims on United States hospital websites. J Healthc Qual 33:48–52CrossRefPubMed Jin L, Ibrahim A, Newman N et al (2011) Robotic surgery claims on United States hospital websites. J Healthc Qual 33:48–52CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a retrospective, single-center study of early perioperative outcomes at a community hospital
verfasst von
Arif Ahmad
Jared D. Carleton
Zoha F. Ahmad
Ashish Agarwala
Publikationsdatum
10.12.2015
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Surgical Endoscopy / Ausgabe 9/2016
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4675-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 9/2016

Surgical Endoscopy 9/2016 Zur Ausgabe

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.