Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A comparison of outcomes between the traditional laparoscopic and totally robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is considered to be the gold standard of bariatric procedures. Minimally invasive surgical techniques have been demonstrated to decrease recovery time and provide for favorable cosmetic outcomes. The drawback of traditional laparoscopic techniques for the surgeon comes in the form of 2D monitoring of not always intuitive instrument manipulation. The da Vinci Surgical System provides surgeons with a 3D view and more intuitive instrument manipulation. This study was conducted in order to compare the surgical outcomes and assess the learning curve of traditional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypasses (LRYGB) to totally robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypasses (TRRYGB). A single surgeon’s 100 most recent patients who underwent traditional LRYGB and the first 100 patients who underwent TRRYGB were included in this study. Data was collected on patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), co-morbidities, surgical time, length of admission, and complication rates. No significant differences were found between study groups with respect to age, gender, BMI or any recorded co-morbidities. The mean operative times for patients 1–50 in the TRRYGB and LRYGB groups were 204.34 ± 90.19 min and 151.16 ± 47.16 min, respectively (P = 0.0004). Mean operative times were 159.60 ± 48.26 min and 166.66 ± 44.95 min for patients 51–100 in the TRRYGB and LRYGB groups, respectively (P = 0.45). No significant differences were found between study groups with respect to post-surgical complications or 30-day outcomes. Our data shows that TRRYGB compares favorably to the traditional laparoscopic approach, while maintaining patient safety.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Kit BK, Flegal KM (2012) Prevalence of obesity in the United States, 2009–2010. NCHS Data Brief No. 82

  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2010) Prevalence of overweight, obesity, and extreme obesity among adults: United States, Trends 1976–1980 through 2007–2008

  3. Consensus Development Conference Panel (1991) Gastrointestinal surgery for severe obesity: consensus development conference statement. Ann Intern Med 115:956–961

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Finkelstein EA (2009) Annual medical spending attributable to obesity: Payer-and service-specific estimates. Health Aff 29(5):822–831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Christou NV, Sampalis JS, Liberman M, Look D, Auger S, McLean AP, MacLean LD (2004) Surgery decreases long-term mortality, morbidity and health care use in the morbidly obese patients. Ann Surg 240:416–423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Strauss B, Marks S, Schachter L, Chapman L, Anderson M (2006) Treatment of mild to moderate obesity with laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding or an intensive medical program: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 144:625–633

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schauer PR, Ikramuddin S, Gourash W, Ramanathan R, Luketich J (2000) Outcomes after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for morbid obesity. Ann Surg 232:515–529

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Steinbrook R (2004) Surgery for severe obesity. N Engl J Med 350:1075–1079

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Robinson MK (2009) Surgical treatment of obesity—weighing the facts. N Engl J Med 361(5):520–521

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mason EE, Ito C (1967) Gastric bypass in obesity. Surg Clin North Am 47:1345–1352

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Markar SR, Karthikesalingam AP, Venkat-Ramen V, Kinross J, Ziprin P (2011) Robotic vs. laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in morbidly obese patients: systematic review and pooled analysis. Int J Med Robot 7:393–400

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bult MJ, van Dalen T, Muller AF (2008) Surgical treatment of obesity. Eur J Endocrinol 158(2):135–145

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wittgrove AC, Clark GW, Tremblay LJ (1994) Laparoscopic gastric bypass, Roux-en-Y: preliminary report of five cases. Obes Surg 4:353–357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim KC, Buffington C (2011) Totally robotic gastric bypass: approach and technique. J Robotic Surg 5:47–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ayloo SM, Addeo P, Buchs NC, Shah G, Giulianotti PC (2011) Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass:is there a difference in outcomes? World J Surg 35:637–642

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Madan AK, Speck KE, Hiler ML (2004) Routine preoperative upper endoscopy for laparoscopic gastric bypass: is it necessary? Ann Surg 70:684–686

    Google Scholar 

  17. Talamini MA, Chapman S, Horgan S, Melvin WS (2003) A prospective analysis of 211 robotic-assisted surgical procedures. Surg Endosc 17:1521–1524

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Oliak D, Ballantyne GH, Weber P, Wasielewski A, Davies RJ, Schmidt HJ (2003) Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass—defining the learning curve. Surg Endosc 17:406–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Schauer P, Ikramuddin S, Hamad G, Gourash W (2003) The learning curve for laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is 100 cases. Surg Endosc 17:212–215

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joshua J. Kroll.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wood, M.H., Kroll, J.J. & Garretson, B. A comparison of outcomes between the traditional laparoscopic and totally robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures. J Robotic Surg 8, 29–34 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-013-0416-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-013-0416-1

Keywords

Navigation