Skip to main content
Log in

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic approach to concurrent bariatric surgery and hiatal hernia repair: propensity score matching analysis using the 2015–2018 MBSAQIP

  • 2021 SAGES Oral
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Up to 37% of class three obesity patients have a Hiatal Hernia (HH). Most of the existent HHs get repaired at the time of bariatric surgery. Although the robotic platform might offer potential technical advantages over traditional laparoscopy, the clinical outcomes of the concurrent bariatric surgery and HH repair comparing robotic vs laparoscopic approaches have not been reported.

Methods

Using the 2015–2018 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database, patients between 18 and 65 year old who underwent Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) with concurrent HH repair were identified. Demographic, operative, and 30-day postoperative outcomes data were compared between laparoscopic and robotic groups. To adjust for potential confounders, 1:1 propensity score matching was performed using 22 preoperative characteristics.

Results

75,034 patients underwent SG (n = 61,458) or RYGB (n = 13,576) with concurrent HH repair. The operative time was significantly longer in the Robotic-assisted compared to the laparoscopic approach both for SG (102.31 ± 44 vs. 75.27 ± 37; P < 0.001) and for RYGB (163.48 ± 65 vs. 132.87 ± 57; P < 0.001). In the SG cohort (4639 matched cases), the robotic approach showed similar results in 30 day outcomes as in the laparoscopic approach, with no statistical difference. Conversely, for the RYGB cohort (1502 matched cases), the robotic approach showed significantly fewer requirements for blood transfusions (0.3% vs. 1.7%; P = 0.001), fewer anastomotic leaks (0.2% vs. 0.8%; P = 0.035), and less postoperative bleeding (0.4% vs. 1.1%; P = 0.049).

Conclusion

Robotic concurrent bariatric surgery and HH repair leads to similar overall clinical outcomes as the laparoscopic approach despite longer operative times. Furthermore, the robotic approach is associated with reduced blood transfusion and anastomotic leak incidence in the RYGB group.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Berstad A, Weberg R, Frøyshov Larsen I, Hoel B, Hauer-Jensen M (1986) Relationship of hiatus hernia to reflux oesophagitis. A prospective study of coincidence, using endoscopy. Scand J Gastroenterol 21:55–58. https://doi.org/10.3109/00365528609034622

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sakata S, Grove PM, Stevenson AR (2016) Effect of 3-dimensional vision on surgeons using the da vinci robot for laparoscopy: more than meets the eye. JAMA Surg 151:793–794. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2016.0412

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lewis KH, Callaway K, Argetsinger S, Wallace J, Arterburn DE, Zhang F, Fernandez A, Ross-Degnan D, Dimick JB, Wharam JF (2021) Concurrent hiatal hernia repair and bariatric surgery: outcomes after sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Obes Relat Dis 17:72–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Navarini D, Madalosso CAS, Tognon AP, Fornari F, Barão FR, Gurski RR (2020) Predictive factors of gastroesophageal reflux disease in bariatric surgery: a controlled trial comparing sleeve gastrectomy with gastric bypass. Obes Surg 30:1360–1367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-019-04286-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dimou FM, Ackermann N, Chang SH, Freeman D, Eagon JC, Eckhouse SR (2021) Understanding the current role of robotic-assisted bariatric surgery. Obes Surg 31:3130–3137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-021-05375-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. O’Connor SC, Mallard M, Desai SS, Couto F, Gottlieb M, Ewing A, Cobb WS, Carbonell AM, Warren JA (2020) Robotic versus laparoscopic approach to hiatal hernia repair: results after 7 years of robotic experience. Am Surg 86:1083–1087. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003134820943547

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jung MK, Hagen ME, Buchs NC, Buehler LH, Morel P (2017) Robotic bariatric surgery: a general review of the current status. Int J Med Robot 13(4):e1834

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Soliman BG, Nguyen DT, Chan EY, Chihara RK, Meisenbach LM, Graviss EA, Kim MP (2020) Robot-assisted hiatal hernia repair demonstrates favorable short-term outcomes compared to laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair. Surg Endosc 34:2495–2502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07055-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dudash M, Kuhn J, Dove J, Fluck M, Horsley R, Gabrielsen J, Daouadi M, Petrick AT, Parker DM (2020) The longitudinal efficiency of robotic surgery: an mbsaqip propensity matched 4-year comparison of robotic and laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Obes Surg 30:3706–3713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-020-04712-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cheng YL, Elli EF (2021) Role of robotic surgery in complex revisional bariatric procedures. Obes Surg 31:2583–2589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-021-05272-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sebastian R, Howell MH, Chang KH, Adrales G, Magnuson T, Schweitzer M, Nguyen H (2019) Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy: a propensity score-matched comparative analysis using the 2015–2016 MBSAQIP database. Surg Endosc 33:1600–1612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6422-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sharma G, Strong AT, Tu C, Brethauer SA, Schauer PR, Aminian A (2018) Robotic platform for gastric bypass is associated with more resource utilization: an analysis of MBSAQIP dataset. Surg Obes Relat Dis 14:304–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Myers SR, McGuirl J, Wang J (2013) Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic gastric bypass: comparison of short-term outcomes. Obes Surg 23:467–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-012-0848-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jiang HP, Lin LL, Jiang X, Qiao HQ (2016) Meta-analysis of hand-sewn versus mechanical gastrojejunal anastomosis during laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for morbid obesity. Int J Surg 32:150–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Buchs NC, Morel P, Azagury DE, Jung M, Chassot G, Huber O, Hagen ME, Pugin F (2014) Laparoscopic versus robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: lessons and long-term follow-up learned from a large prospective monocentric study. Obes Surg 24:2031–2039. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-014-1335-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hagen ME, Pugin F, Chassot G, Huber O, Buchs N, Iranmanesh P, Morel P (2012) Reducing cost of surgery by avoiding complications: the model of robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Obes Surg 22:52–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-011-0422-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Scarritt T, Hsu CH, Maegawa FB, Ayala AE, Mobily M, Ghaderi I (2021) Trends in utilization and perioperative outcomes in robotic-assisted bariatric surgery using the mbsaqip database: a 4-year analysis. Obes Surg 31:854–861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-020-05055-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raul Sebastian.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Raul Sebastian, Omar M. Ghanem, Jorge Cornejo, Thomas Ruttger, Matthew Mayuiers, Gina Adrales, Christina Li have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sebastian, R., Ghanem, O.M., Cornejo, J. et al. Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic approach to concurrent bariatric surgery and hiatal hernia repair: propensity score matching analysis using the 2015–2018 MBSAQIP. Surg Endosc 36, 6886–6895 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09027-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09027-x

Keywords

Navigation