Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Results of 100 Robotic Versus 100 Laparoscopic Gastric Bypass Procedures: a Single High Volume Centre Experience

  • Original Contributions
  • Published:
Obesity Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The introduction of robotics in bariatric surgery is a novel development since the beginning of this century. The aim of this study is to compare surgical outcome of the robotic gastric bypass with the laparoscopic counterpart.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted to compare the results of 100 fully robotic gastric bypasses (RGB) and 100 laparoscopic gastric bypasses (LGB) performed by a single surgeon. Surgical outcome was analysed by evaluating operation room time and surgical time, morbidity and mortality, and length of hospital stay.

Results

In the RGB and LGB group, respectively, 92 and 80 % of operated patients were female (p = 0.024). Mean age was 39 (range 20–62, SD 10.21) and 42 years (range 18–65, SD 11.87), respectively (p = 0.158). Mean BMI was 40 (range 35–47, SD 2.66) and 42 (range 35–56, SD 4.75), respectively (p < 0.05). Mean surgical time was 67 (range 39–210, SD 22.46) and 31 min (range 18–62, SD 9.12), respectively (p < 0.05). Mean operation room time was 117 (range 80–257, SD 30.13) and 66 min (range 38–101, SD 12.68), respectively (p < 0.05). The surgery-related 30-day morbidity rate was 5 % in both groups. Major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo class 3–4) was 3 and 1 %, respectively (p = 0.62). There was no mortality. Median hospital stay was two postoperative days in both groups. A learning curve developed after 25 procedures.

Conclusions

The RGB is a feasible procedure. Although more time is needed, a standardized technique results in fair operation times in the hands of an experienced surgeon.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mason E, Ito C. Gastric bypass in obesity. Surg Clin North Am. 1967;47:1345–54.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wittgrove A, Clark G, Tremblay L. Laparoscopic gastric bypass, Roux-en-Y: preliminary report of five cases. Obes Surg. 1994;4:353–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Horgan S, Vanuno D. Robots in laparoscopic surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2001;11(6):415–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Talamini M, Chapman S, Horgan S, et al. A prospective analysis of 211 robotic-assisted surgical procedures. Academic Robotics Group. Surg Endosc. 2003;17(10):1521–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fourman M, Saber A. Robotic bariatric surgery: a systematic review. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2012;8(4):483–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cirocchi R, Boselli C, Santoro A, et al. Current status of robotic bariatric surgery: a systematic review. BMC Surg. 2013;13:53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. NIH Consensus Development Conference Panel for bariatric surgery, Bethesda, March 1991

  9. Fried I, Yumuk V, Oppert J, et al. Interdisciplinary European guidelines on metabolic and bariatric surgery. Obes Facts. 2013;6(5):449–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ramos A, Silva A, Ramos M, et al. Simplified gastric bypass: 13 years of experience and 12,000 patients operated. Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2014;27 Suppl 1:2–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. DeMaria E, Sugerman H, Kellum J, et al. Results of 281 consecutive total laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypasses to treat morbid obesity. Ann Surg. 2002;235(5):640–5. discussion 645-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Peterli R, Borbély Y, Kern B, et al. Early results of the Swiss Multicentre Bypass or Sleeve Study (SM-BOSS): a prospective randomized trial comparing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Ann Surg. 2013;258(5):690–4. discussion 695.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Dillemans B, Sakran N, Van Cauwenberge S, et al. Standardization of the fully stapled laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for obesity reduces early immediate postoperative morbidity and mortality: a single center study on 2606 patients. Obes Surg. 2009;19(10):1355–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Dogan K, Kraaij L, Aarts E, et al. Fast-track bariatric surgery improves perioperative care and logistics compared to conventional care. Obes Surg. 2015;25(1):28–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Myers SR, McGuirl J, Wang J. Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic gastric bypass: comparison of short-term outcomes. Obes Surg. 2013;23(4):467–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Park C, Lam E, Walsh T, et al. Robotic-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass performed in a community hospital setting: the future of bariatric surgery? Surg Endosc. 2011;25(10):3312–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hagen M, Inan I, Pugin F, et al. The da Vinci surgical system in digestive surgery. Rev Med Suisse. 2007;3(117):1622–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Benizri E, Renaud M, Reibel N, et al. Perioperative outcomes after totally robotic gastric bypass: a prospective nonrandomized controlled study. Am J Surg. 2013;206(2):145–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Buchs N, Morel P, Azagury D, et al. Laparoscopic versus robotic Roux-En-Y gastric bypass: lessons and long-term follow-up learned from a large prospective monocentric study. Obes Surg. 2014;24(12):2031–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Yu S, Clapp B, Lee M, et al. 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. 2006;192(6):746–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ayloo S, Addeo P, Shah G, et al. Robot-assisted hybrid laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: surgical technique and early outcomes. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2010;20(10):847–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Artuso D, Wayne M, Grossi R. Use of robotics during laparoscopic gastric bypass for morbid obesity. JSLS. 2005;9(3):266–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Mohr C, Nadzam G, Alami R, et al. Totally robotic laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric bypass: results from 75 patients. Obes Surg. 2006;16(6):690–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hagen M, Pugin F, Chassot G, et al. Reducing cost of surgery by avoiding complications: the model of robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Obes Surg. 2012;22(1):52–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hubens G, Balliu L, Ruppert M, et al. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedure performed with the da Vinci robot system: is it worth it? Surg Endosc. 2008;22(7):1690–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bailey J, Hayden J, Davis P, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) in obese adults ages 18 to 65 years: a systematic review and economic analysis. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(2):414–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sanchez B, Mohr C, Morton J, et al. Comparison of totally robotic laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and traditional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2005;1(6):549–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Scozzari G, Rebecchi F, Millo P, et al. Robot-assisted gastrojejunal anastomosis does not improve the results of the laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(2):597–603.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Snyder B, Wilson T, Leong B, et al. Robotic-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: minimizing morbidity and mortality. Obes Surg. 2010;20(3):265–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Buchs NC, Morel P, Azagury DE, et al. Laparoscopic versus robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: lessons and long-term follow-up learned from a large prospective monocentric study. Obes Surg. 2014;24(12):2031–9. doi:10.1007/s11695-014-1335-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tieu K, Allison N, Snyder B, et al. Robotic-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: update from 2 high-volume centers. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2013;9(2):284–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Moser F, Horgan S. Robotically assisted bariatric surgery. Am J Surg. 2004;188(4A Suppl):38S–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Deng J, Lourié D. 100 robotic-assisted laparoscopic gastric bypasses at a community hospital. Am Surg. 2008;74(10):1022–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Bindal V, Gonzalez-Heredia R, Masrur M, Elli EF. Technique evolution, learning curve, and outcomes of 200 robot-assisted gastric bypass procedures: a 5-year experience.Obes Surg. 2014;14.

  35. Bindal V, Bhatia P, Dudeja U, et al. Review of contemporary role of robotics in bariatric surgery. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(1):1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Toro J, Lin E, Patel A. Review of robotics in foregut and bariatric surgery. J Minim Access Surg. 2015;11(1):16–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Buchs N, Pugin F, Bucher P, et al. Learning curve for robot-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(4):1116–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Renaud M, Reibel N, Zarnegar R, et al. Multifactorial analysis of the learning curve for totally robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for morbid obesity. Obes Surg. 2013;23(11):1753–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lawson E, Curet M, Sanchez B, et al. Postural ergonomics during robotic and laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery: a pilot project. Robot Surg. 2007;1(1):61–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Bariatric Surgery, Bariatric Centre South-West Netherlands, Bravis Hospital, Bergen op Zoom, The Netherlands

    R. M. Smeenk, G. van ‘t Hof, E. Elsten & P. G. B. M. Feskens

Authors
  1. R. M. Smeenk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. van ‘t Hof
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. Elsten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. G. B. M. Feskens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. M. Smeenk.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Statement of Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Statement of Human and Animal Rights

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Smeenk, R.M., van ‘t Hof, G., Elsten, E. et al. The Results of 100 Robotic Versus 100 Laparoscopic Gastric Bypass Procedures: a Single High Volume Centre Experience. OBES SURG 26, 1266–1273 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-015-1933-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-015-1933-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation