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
  • [31] Outcomes in conventional laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted revisional bariatric surgery: a retrospective, case–controlled study of the MBSAQIP database
    Edwin Acevedo
    Michael Mazzei
    Huaqing Zhao
    Xiaoning Lu
    Michael A. Edwards
    Surgical Endoscopy, 2020, 34 : 1573 - 1584
  • [32] Robotic-Assisted Liver Surgery
    Croner, R.
    Perrakis, A.
    Gruetzmann, R.
    Hohenberger, W.
    Brunner, M.
    ZENTRALBLATT FUR CHIRURGIE, 2016, 141 (02): : 154 - 159
  • [33] Outcomes in conventional laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted primary bariatric surgery: a retrospective, case–controlled study of the MBSAQIP database
    Edwin Acevedo
    Michael Mazzei
    Huaqing Zhao
    Xiaoning Lu
    Rohit Soans
    Michael A. Edwards
    Surgical Endoscopy, 2020, 34 : 1353 - 1365
  • [34] Robotic-Assisted Microsurgery for an Elective Microsurgical Practice
    Gudeloglu, Ahmet
    Brahmbhatt, Jamin V.
    Parekattil, Sijo J.
    SEMINARS IN PLASTIC SURGERY, 2014, 28 (01) : 11 - 19
  • [35] Robotic-Assisted Lymphatic Surgery
    Gruenherz, Lisanne
    von Reibnitz, Donata
    Lindenblat, Nicole
    HANDCHIRURGIE MIKROCHIRURGIE PLASTISCHE CHIRURGIE, 2024, 56 (02) : 122 - 127
  • [36] Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery: Initial Results From 71 Patients
    Tran, Daniel
    Halmi, Denis
    Kolesnikov, Evgeni
    OBESITY SURGERY, 2010, 20 (08) : 1064 - 1065
  • [37] Robotic-assisted surgery in ophthalmology
    de Smet, Marc D.
    Naus, Gerrit J. L.
    Faridpooya, Koorosh
    Mura, Marco
    CURRENT OPINION IN OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2018, 29 (03) : 248 - 253
  • [38] Robotic-Assisted Esophageal Surgery
    Straughan, David M.
    Azoury, Said C.
    Bennett, Robert D.
    Pimiento, Jose M.
    Fontaine, Jacques P.
    Toloza, Eric M.
    CANCER CONTROL, 2015, 22 (03) : 335 - 339
  • [39] Robotic-Assisted Oesophageal Surgery
    Egberts, J. -H.
    Aselmann, H.
    Hauser, C.
    Bernsmeier, A.
    Carstens, A.
    Hoecker, J.
    Becker, T.
    ZENTRALBLATT FUR CHIRURGIE, 2016, 141 (02): : 145 - 153
  • [40] Robotic-assisted tracheobronchial surgery
    Cohen, Brian D.
    Marshall, M. Blair
    JOURNAL OF THORACIC DISEASE, 2020, 12 (10) : 6173 - 6178