Lowering gastrointestinal leak rates: a comparative analysis of robotic and laparoscopic gastric bypass.

Brad E Snyder, Todd Wilson, Terry Scarborough, Sherman Yu, Erik B Wilson
Author Information
  1. Brad E Snyder: The University of Texas Medical School at Houston, 6431 Fannin Street, Suite 4.294, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. brad.snyder@uth.tmc.edu.
  2. Todd Wilson: The University of Texas Medical School at Houston, 6431 Fannin Street, Suite 4.294, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
  3. Terry Scarborough: The University of Texas Medical School at Houston, 6431 Fannin Street, Suite 4.294, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
  4. Sherman Yu: The University of Texas Medical School at Houston, 6431 Fannin Street, Suite 4.294, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
  5. Erik B Wilson: The University of Texas Medical School at Houston, 6431 Fannin Street, Suite 4.294, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.

Abstract

Robotic-assisted surgery has been described for many general surgery procedures, including gastric bypass. This is a comparative study looking at the short-term outcomes and technical differences between laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRNY) and robotic-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RARNY). Our database was reviewed for all Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures performed over the last 5 years. Operative times, length of stay, and all complications listed for the 90 days postoperatively were recorded and statistically analyzed. A total of 356 LRNY and 249 RARNY were performed. The average body mass index (BMI), age, and sex were similar between groups. On average, the RARNY took 17 min longer than the LRNY, this difference being significant (p < 0.01). Average length of stay for the two groups was similar (~3 days). There were a total of 51 complications in the standard laparoscopic group (14%), of which 14 (3.9%) were major complications. In the robotic group, there were 35 (14%) complications, of which 9 (3.6%) were major complications. The only significant difference in complication rate was for anastomotic leak at the gastrojejunostomy: there were no leaks in the robotic series, and six (1.7%) in the standard laparoscopic series (p = 0.04). Length of stay and overall complication rates were similar for RARNY and LRNY. There was no mortality in either group, and the complication rate was lower than literature standards. While the RARNY took longer, there was a significantly lower gastrointestinal leak rate in this group.

Keywords

References

  1. Am J Surg. 2000 Jun;179(6):476-81 [PMID: 11004334]
  2. Curr Urol Rep. 2003 Apr;4(2):114-8 [PMID: 12648427]
  3. Can J Surg. 2006 Dec;49(6):417-21 [PMID: 17234071]
  4. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2006 Aug;22(6):429-31 [PMID: 16894487]
  5. Microsurgery. 2005;25(7):566-9 [PMID: 16178007]
  6. Arch Surg. 2003 Feb;138(2):181-4 [PMID: 12578417]
  7. Surg Endosc. 2005 Apr;19(4):468-72 [PMID: 15624059]
  8. J Am Coll Surg. 2007 Aug;205(2):248-55 [PMID: 17660071]
  9. JSLS. 2006 Jul-Sep;10(3):317-20 [PMID: 17212887]
  10. Surgery. 2007 Oct;142(4):613-8; discussion 618-20 [PMID: 17950356]
  11. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2006 Apr;16(2):83-7 [PMID: 16646693]
  12. Urology. 2006 Jan;67(1):199 [PMID: 16413370]
  13. Arch Surg. 2005 Aug;140(8):779-86 [PMID: 16103289]
  14. Rev Med Suisse. 2007 Dec 5;3(136):2766-8, 2770, 2772 [PMID: 18183810]
  15. Obes Surg. 2007 Mar;17(3):292-7 [PMID: 17546834]
  16. Surg Endosc. 2007 Dec;21(12):2285-92 [PMID: 17593457]
  17. J Formos Med Assoc. 2005 Oct;104(10):748-51 [PMID: 16385378]
  18. Arch Surg. 2000 Sep;135(9):1029-33; discussion 1033-4 [PMID: 10982506]
  19. Am J Surg. 2006 Dec;192(6):746-9 [PMID: 17161087]
  20. Surg Endosc. 2007 Sep;21(9):1662-6 [PMID: 17345142]
  21. Am J Surg. 2004 Oct;188(4A Suppl):38S-44S [PMID: 15476650]
  22. Am J Surg. 2007 Apr;193(4):519-22 [PMID: 17368303]
  23. J Surg Res. 2006 Dec;136(2):172-8 [PMID: 17059837]
  24. Surg Endosc. 2004 Apr;18(4):611-6 [PMID: 14752629]
  25. Surg Endosc. 2006 Nov;20(11):1687-92 [PMID: 16960681]
  26. J Gastrointest Surg. 2005 Nov;9(8):1020-9; discussion 1029-30 [PMID: 16269372]
  27. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2003 Aug;13(4):279-83 [PMID: 14561257]
  28. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2008 Mar-Apr;4(2):166-72; discussion 172-3 [PMID: 18069071]
  29. Ear Nose Throat J. 2005 Aug;84(8):483-7 [PMID: 16220853]
  30. Obes Surg. 1999 Feb;9(1):22-7; discussion 28 [PMID: 10065576]
  31. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2007 Sep-Oct;3(5):508-14 [PMID: 17686661]
  32. Am J Surg. 2007 Mar;193(3):349-55; discussion 355 [PMID: 17320533]
  33. J Am Coll Surg. 1995 Dec;181(6):552-7 [PMID: 7582231]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0gastricbypassRARNYcomplicationssurgerylaparoscopicRoux-en-YLRNYgroupratestaysimilarroboticcomplicationleakRobotic-assistedprocedurescomparativeperformedlengthtotalaveragegroupstooklongerdifferencesignificantstandard14%3majorserieslowergastrointestinaldescribedmanygeneralincludingstudylookingshort-termoutcomestechnicaldifferencesrobotic-assisteddatabasereviewedlast5 yearsOperativetimeslisted90 dayspostoperativelyrecordedstatisticallyanalyzed356249bodymassindexBMIagesex17 minp < 001Averagetwo~3 days51149%3596%anastomoticgastrojejunostomy:leakssix17%p = 004LengthoverallratesmortalityeitherliteraturestandardssignificantlyLoweringrates:analysisBariatricLaparoscopicLeak

Similar Articles

Cited By