The aim was to compare clinical outcomes of patients treated with totally robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (TRRYGB) with those treated with the different laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) techniques. The clinical benefit of the robotic approach to bariatric surgery compared to the standard laparoscopic approach is unclear. There are no studies directly comparing outcomes of TRRYGB with different LRYGB techniques. Outcomes of 578 obese patients who underwent RYGB between 2011 and 2014 at an academic center were assessed. Multivariable analysis and propensity matching were used for comparing TRRYGB to different LRYGB techniques, including 21-mm EEA circular-stapled gastrojejunal anastomosis (GJA, LRYGB-21CS), linear-stapled GJA (LRYGB-LS), and hand-sewn GJA (LRYGB-HS). The TRRYGB technique required a longer mean operative time compared to the other groups, respectively 204 ± 46 vs. 139 ± 30 min (LRYGB-21CS), 206 ± 37 vs. 158 ± 30 min (LRYGB-LS), and 210 ± 36 vs. 167 ± 30 min (LRYGB-HS). TRRYGB experienced a lower stricture rate (2 vs. 17%, P = 0.003), shorter hospital stay (2.6 ± 1.2 vs. 4.3 ± 5.5 days, P = 0.008), and lower readmission rate (12 vs. 28%, P = 0.009). No significant differences in outcomes were observed when comparing RRYGB to LRYGB-LS or LRYGB-HS. TRRYGB increases operative time compared to all LRYGB techniques. TRRYGB was superior to LRYGB-21CS in terms of significantly shorter hospital stay, lower readmission rate, and less frequent GJA stricture formation. TRRYGB provides no clinical advantages over the LRYGB-LS and LRYGB-HS techniques.
In Brief Objectives: In this study, we report long-term outcomes of high-risk, high-BMI (body mass index) patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Background: Short- and medium-term data appear to support the effectiveness of LSG, but long-term data to support its durability are sparse. Methods: A prospective database was reviewed on all high-risk patients who underwent LSG as part of a staged approach for surgical treatment of severe obesity between January 2002 and February 2004. We included only patients who did not proceed to second-stage surgery (gastric bypass). Analyzed data included demographics, BMI, comorbidities, and surgical outcomes. All partial gastrectomies were performed using a 50F bougie. Results: Seventy-four patients underwent LSG, and follow-up data were available on 69 of 74 patients (93%). The mean age was 50 years (25–78) and the mean number of co-morbidities was 9.6. Perioperative mortality (<30 days) was zero, and the incidence of short- and long-term postoperative complications was 15%. The mean overall follow-up time period was 73 months (38–95). Mean excess weight loss (EWL) at 72, 84, and 96 months after LSG was 52%, 43%, and 46%, respectively, with an overall EWL of 48%. The mean BMI decreased from 66 kg/m2(43–90) to 46 kg/m2 (22–73). Seventy-seven percent of the diabetic patients showed improvement or remission of the disease. Conclusions: This study reports the longest follow-up of LSG patients thus far and supports the effectiveness, safety, and durability of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as a definitive therapeutic option for severe obesity, even in high-risk, high-BMI patients. This study reports the longest follow-up (93% at 6–8 years) of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) patients thus far. It supports the effectiveness, safety, and durability of LSG as a definitive therapeutic option for severe obesity, even in high-risk, high-BMI (body mass index) patients.