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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09027-x