• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
  • Search
    • Search All SAGES Content
    • Search SAGES Guidelines
    • Search the Video Library
    • Search the Image Library
    • Search the Abstracts Archive
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • Search
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2026 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
  • Opportunities
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs and Humanitarian Efforts
  • OWLS/FLS
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Safety and utilization of robotic-assisted metabolic and bariatric surgery at MBSAQIP Centers.

Safety and utilization of robotic-assisted metabolic and bariatric surgery at MBSAQIP Centers.

Elan R Witkowski, MD, MS, Julietta H Chang, MD, Matthew M Hutter, MD, MPH. Mass General Hospital / Harvard Medical School

Introduction: Minimally invasive techniques have greatly improved outcomes in bariatric surgery. Recently, robotic-assisted techniques have been increasingly adopted. Relatively little published data is available regarding the use, safety, and value of robotics in bariatric surgery at a population level. The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) collects clinically-rich data for the majority of all bariatric operations performed in the United States. Trained collectors record data related to the surgical approach (including laparoscopic or robotic), as well as conversion to alternative approaches. We used the first Participant Use File (PUF) from the MBSAQIP to examine the current use and safety of robotic-assistance in bariatric surgery at a national level.

Methods: All patients who underwent primary elective bariatric operations were identified. Univariate statistics were compared between patients who received different approaches. To examine the effects of robotic-assistance more carefully, a subset of patients was selected who underwent the most common operations (sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass) via either robotic or conventional laparoscopic approach. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine the independent effect of robotic vs conventional laparoscopic approach on complications.

Results: 140,649 patients who underwent elective primary bariatric operations in 2015 were identified. Of those, the initial approach was laparoscopic for 124,169(88.28%), robotic-assisted for 8,773(6.24%), and “laparoscopic-assisted” for 6,413(4.56%). Few cases performed with hand assist, NOTES, or single-incision. Utilization of robotics was highest for BPD/DS(227 of 1,051 cases, 21.6%). The greatest number of robotic-assisted cases were sleeve gastrectomy(5,539 of 92,406, 5.99%) and gastric bypass(2,904 of 36,076 cases, 7.18%).

Relatively few operations were converted to a different approach (see table). Operative time was longer when using robotic approaches for both sleeve(74.01 vs 102.39 minutes, p<0.0001) and bypass(116.62 vs 152.68, p<0.0001). Postoperative LOS was no shorter when using robotic-assistance (see table). Unadjusted 30-day outcomes revealed slightly higher rates of readmission for both operations when using robotic-assistance (see table), and slightly higher rates of complications after robotic sleeve gastrectomy (3.91% vs. 3.06%, p<0.001). Multivariable modeling showed no significant impact of robotic-assistance vs conventional laparoscopy on major complications or death (OR 1.1, 95%CI 0.99-1.22).

Conclusions: Robotic-assisted bariatric surgery is being performed for over 6% of all cases. This analysis of the MBSAQIP data demonstrates that the rate of conversion to open surgery is low, and that robotic surgery is safe, though operative times are longer.  The benefit over conventional laparoscopy cannot be seen in this data set. 

 


Presented at the SAGES 2017 Annual Meeting in Houston, TX.

Abstract ID: 88507

Program Number: P751

Presentation Session: iPoster Session (Non CME)

Presentation Type: Poster

95

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • Click to share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
  • Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky

Related


sages_adbutler_leaderboard

Hours & Info

11300 West Olympic Blvd, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90064

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2025 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals