• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • COVID-19 Annoucements
    • Search
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Who is SAGES?
    • SAGES Mission Statement
    • Advocacy
    • Strategic Plan, 2020-2023
    • Committees
      • Request to Join a SAGES Committee
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Full Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
    • Donate to the SAGES Foundation
    • Awards
      • George Berci Award
      • Pioneer in Surgical Endoscopy
      • Excellence In Clinical Care
      • International Ambassador
      • IRCAD Visiting Fellowship
      • Social Justice and Health Equity
      • Excellence in Community Surgery
      • Distinguished Service
      • Early Career Researcher
      • Researcher in Training
      • Jeff Ponsky Master Educator
      • Excellence in Medical Leadership
      • Barbara Berci Memorial Award
      • Brandeis Scholarship
      • Advocacy Summit
      • RAFT Annual Meeting Abstract Contest and Awards
  • Meetings
    • NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2024 Scientific Session Call For Abstracts
      • 2024 Emerging Technology Call For Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • Industry
      • Advertising Opportunities
      • Exhibit Opportunities
      • Sponsorship Opportunities
    • Future Meetings
    • Past Meetings
      • SAGES 2022
      • SAGES 2021
    • Related Meetings Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Applications
      • Active Membership
      • Affiliate Membership
      • Associate Active Membership
      • Candidate Membership
      • International Membership
      • Medical Student Membership
    • Member News
      • Member Spotlight
      • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find a SAGES Member
  • Publications
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • SAGES Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • SAGES Manuals
    • SCOPE – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Annoucements
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • OpiVoid.org
    • SAGES.TV Video Library
    • Safe Cholecystectomy Program
      • Safe Cholecystectomy Didactic Modules
    • Masters Program
      • SAGES Facebook Program Collaboratives
      • Acute Care Surgery
      • Bariatric
      • Biliary
      • Colorectal
      • Flexible Endoscopy (upper or lower)
      • Foregut
      • Hernia
      • Robotics
    • Educational Opportunities
    • HPB/Solid Organ Program
    • Courses for Residents
      • Advanced Courses
      • Basic Courses
    • Video Based Assessments (VBA)
    • Robotics Fellows Course
    • MIS Fellows Course
    • Facebook Livestreams
    • Free Webinars For Residents
    • SMART Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video
    • SAGES at Cine-Med
      • SAGES Top 21 MIS Procedures
      • SAGES Pearls
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
      • SAGES Tips & Tricks of the Top 21
  • Opportunities
    • NEW-Area of Concentrated Training Seal (ACT)-Advanced Flexible Endoscopy
    • SAGES Fellowship Certification for Advanced GI MIS and Comprehensive Flexible Endoscopy
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • SAGES Research Opportunities
    • Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery
    • Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery
    • Fundamental Use of Surgical Energy
    • Job Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs and Humanitarian Efforts
  • Search
    • Search All SAGES Content
    • Search SAGES Guidelines
    • Search the Video Library
    • Search the Image Library
    • Search the Abstracts Archive
  • Store
    • “Unofficial” Logo Products
  • Log In

Robot-assisted vs Laparoscopic Assisted Sleeve Gastrectomy: Comparison of 108 Cases.

Umashankkar Kannan1, Rashikh Choudhury2, Daniel T Dempsey3, Noel N Williams3, Kristoffel R Dumon3. 1Bronx Lebanon Hospital Center, Bronx, NY, 2Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, 3Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Background: The purpose of this retrospective study is to report our early experience with Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Sleeve gastrectomy (RALSG) in comparison to laparoscopic assisted sleeve gastrectomy (LASG) in the setting of a university teaching hospital.

Methods: The study included 108 patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy either via the Laparoscopic-assisted or robotic-assisted approach from February 2010 to February 2012. Of these 108 patients, 62 underwent LASG and 46 underwent RALSG. Patient demographics, operative complications, total operative times, and clinical outcomes were measured and analyzed. Comparison between the laparoscopic and robotic groups was performed using Fisher's exact test for discrete variables and Mann-Whitney's test for continuous variables.

Results: The patients in the robotic and laparoscopic groups did not have a statistical difference in their demographics or baseline preoperative comorbidities. The mean operating time did not differ significantly between the two groups (123 minutes versus 115 minutes). Additionally, there was no significant learning curve, in terms of time to complete operation after the RALSG procedure was started. There was no mortality in either group. There was also no anastomotic leak or bleeding complications in both the groups. Laparoscopic group had two surgical site infections while there was no infection in the robotic group. The length of postoperative hospital stay was slightly lower for the robotic group compared to the laparoscopic group (4.6 vs 4.23 days, p= 0.007). There were 3 (5%) readmissions in the laparoscopic group and 7 (15%) in the robotic group. The mean estimated excess weight loss in percent (EWL%) at 3 months, 6 months and 1 year was greater in the robotic group (26.66 versus 21.72 at 3 months, p=0.05 and 39 versus 34 at 6 months, p=0.025, 57.39 versus 47.65 at 1year, p=0.087). The difference in weight loss was statistically significant at 3 and 6 months while not significant at 1 year follow up. Average costs for robotic supplies was 11% (p < 0.001) higher than laparoscopic supplies while the total hospitalization cost was 7% higher (P< 0.001) for the robotic group.

Conclusions: Early results of our experience with RALSG show low perioperative complication rates and satisfactory results with weight loss in the short term which are comparable with LASG with no statistically significant difference between intra-operative and postoperative complications between the two surgical groups.

49

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • WhatsApp
  • Reddit

Related

« Return to SAGES 2015 abstract archive

Hours & Info

11300 West Olympic Blvd, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90064
1-310-437-0544
sagesweb@sages.org
Monday - Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Important Links

SAGES 2023 Meeting Information

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals

 

  • taTME Study Info
  • Foundation
  • SAGES.TV
  • MyCME
  • Educational Activities

Copyright © 2023 Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons