Elective robotic-assisted bariatric surgery: Is it worth the money? A national database analysis

被引:23
|
作者
Pokala, Bhavani [1 ]
Samuel, Shradha [1 ]
Yanala, Ujwal [1 ]
Armijo, Priscila [1 ,2 ]
Kothari, Vishal [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Nebraska Med Ctr, Dept Surg, Gen Surg, Omaha, NE USA
[2] Univ Nebraska Med Ctr, Ctr Adv Surg Technol, Omaha, NE USA
来源
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY | 2020年 / 220卷 / 06期
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Bariatrics; Minimally invasive surgery; Cost; outcomes; Opiate use; Y GASTRIC BYPASS; CIRCULAR-STAPLED GASTROJEJUNOSTOMY; LAPAROSCOPIC-SLEEVE-GASTRECTOMY; FOLLOW-UP; COMPLICATIONS;
D O I
10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.08.040
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: This study sought to evaluate surgical outcomes, cost, and opiate utilization between patients who underwent either laparoscopic or robotic-assisted bariatric procedures, including sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Methods: The Vizient administrative database was queried for patients admitted with mild to moderate severity of illness scores who underwent elective laparoscopic (L) and robotic-assisted (R) SG or RYGB from October 2015 through December 2018. Patients were grouped according to surgical approach for each bariatric procedure. Rates of overall complications, mortality, 30-day readmission, LOS, total direct cost, and opiate utilization were collected. Comparisons were performed within each bariatric procedure, between laparoscopic and robotic approaches, using IBM SPSS v.25.0, a = 0.05. Results: For SG, a total of 84,034 patients were included (LSG:N = 78,405; RSG:N = 5639). There was no significant difference in rates of overall complications (LSG:0.5%, RSG:0.4%; p = 0.872), mortality (LSG:<0.01%, RSG:<0.01%; p = 0.660), and 30-day readmissions (LSG: 0.5%, RSG:0.5%; p = 0.524). Average LOS was 1.65 1.07 days for LSG and 1.77 +/- 1.29 days for RSG (p=<0.001). Robotic approach had a significantly higher direct cost (LSG: $6505 +/- 3,200, RSG: $8018 +/- 3849; p= 0.001). Rate of opiate use was 97.3% for both groups (p= 0.05). For RYGB, 36,039 patients met the inclusion criteria (LRYGB:N = 33,053; RRYGB:N = 2986). There was no significant difference in rates of overall complications (LRYGB: 1.4%, RRYGB:1.3%; p = 0.414) or mortality (LRGYB:<0.01%, RRYGB: <0.01%; p = 0.646). Robotic approach was associated with a lower 30-day readmission rate (LRYGB: 1.3%, RRYGB:<0.01%; p=<0.001). Average LOS was 2.1 +/- 2.18 days for LRYGB and 2.18 +/- 3.78 days for RRYGB (p = 0.075). Robotic approach had a significantly higher direct cost (LRYGB:$8564 +/- 5,350, RRYGB: $10,325 +/- 7689; p=<0.001) and rate of opiate use (LRYG:95.75%, RRYGB:96.85%; p = 0.005). Conclusion: Our study found the direct cost of RSG to be significantly higher than LSG with no added clinical benefit, therefore, universal use of the robotic platform for routine SG cases remains difficult to justify. While the direct cost of RRYGB was also higher than LRYGB, the significantly lower readmission rate associated with robotic approach may help to offset the financial discrepancy and warrant its use. (c) 2020 Published by Elsevier Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:1445 / 1450
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] EARLY EGYPTIAN EXPERIENCE WITH ROBOTIC-ASSISTED BARIATRIC SURGERY Robotic bariatric surgery
    Sarhan, M. Diaa
    OBESITY SURGERY, 2022, 32 (SUPPL 2) : 156 - 156
  • [2] OUTCOMES OF ROBOTIC-ASSISTED REVISIONAL BARIATRIC SURGERY
    Elzein, Steven M.
    Corzo, Maria
    Pena, Victor G.
    Shetty, Sachin
    Tomey, Daniel
    Oviedo, Rodolfo J.
    GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2023, 164 (06) : S1549 - S1549
  • [3] Revisional bariatric surgery using robotic-assisted surgery in a national medical center in Mexico
    Fuentes, Omar Felipe Gaytan
    Galicia, Edith Barajas
    Garcia, Geovany Chavez
    Remigio, Isabel Galvan
    Oviedo, Rodolfo J.
    Fuentes, Israel Abraham Gaytan
    Ventura, Gustavo Andres Ayala
    Mendoza, Jairo Arturo Barba
    JOURNAL OF ROBOTIC SURGERY, 2024, 18 (01)
  • [4] RYGP ROBOTIC-ASSISTED BARIATRIC SURGERY - SERIES ANALYSIS OF CASES AND COMPARISON WITH LAPAROSCOPIC APPROACH Robotic bariatric surgery
    Elias Amado, A.
    Garrido Belarmino, A.
    De Oliveira Roque, M.
    Ito Massaro, R.
    Shirozaki Yoshio, H.
    Sasaki Takeiti, W.
    Vidal, T.
    OBESITY SURGERY, 2019, 29 : 280 - 280
  • [5] Robotic-assisted bariatric surgery: a systematic review
    Gill, Richdeep S.
    Al-Adra, David P.
    Birch, Daniel
    Hudson, Matthew
    Shi, Xinzhe
    Sharma, Arya M.
    Karmali, Shahzeer
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ROBOTICS AND COMPUTER ASSISTED SURGERY, 2011, 7 (03): : 249 - 255
  • [6] Complications of robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery: Analysis of the MAUDE database
    Dockery, L.
    Chapman-Davis, E.
    Kim, Y.
    GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2014, 134 (02) : 431 - 431
  • [7] Robotic-Assisted Lobectomies in the National Cancer Database
    Arnold, Brian N.
    Thomas, Daniel C.
    Narayan, Raja
    Blasberg, Justin D.
    Detterbeck, Frank C.
    Boffa, Daniel J.
    Kim, Anthony W.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 2018, 226 (06) : 1052 - 1062
  • [8] USE OF ROBOTIC PLATFORMS IS SAFE IN ELECTIVE BARIATRIC SURGERY: AN ANALYSIS OF THE MBSAQIP DATABASE
    Pokala, Bhavani
    Armijo, Priscila R.
    Samreen, Sarah
    Oleynikov, Dmitry
    GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2019, 156 (06) : S1478 - S1478
  • [9] Understanding the Current Role of Robotic-Assisted Bariatric Surgery
    Francesca M. Dimou
    Nicole Ackermann
    Su-Hsin Chang
    Dawn Freeman
    J. Christopher Eagon
    Shaina R. Eckhouse
    Obesity Surgery, 2021, 31 : 3130 - 3137
  • [10] Robotic-Assisted Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery in the Pediatric Population
    Griffin, Kristine L.
    V. Ragan, Mecklin
    Patterson, Kelli N.
    Diefenbach, Karen A.
    Needleman, Bradley J.
    Aldrink, Jennifer H.
    Michalsky, Marc P.
    SEMINARS IN PEDIATRIC SURGERY, 2023, 32 (01)