Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38375411›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in surgery2024

Can robotic gastric bypass be considered a valid alternative to laparoscopy? Our early experience and literature review.

Giovanna Pavone, Mario Pacilli, Alberto Gerundo, Andrea Quazzico, Antonio Ambrosi, Nicola Tartaglia

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05746936 (Can Robotic Gastric Bypass be Considered a Valid Alternative to Laparoscopy), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05746936 completednot on this map

Can Robotic Gastric Bypass be Considered a Valid Alternative to Laparoscopy: Our Early Experience

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of FoggiaRan2020 to 2023Enrolled33ConditionsRoux-en-y Anastomosis Site, Obesity, Morbid, Bypass Complication, AnastomosisArmsRoux en-Y gastric bypass
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Giovanna PavoneDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.
Mario PacilliDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.
Alberto GerundoDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.
Andrea QuazzicoDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.
Antonio AmbrosiDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.
Nicola TartagliaDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Robotic bariatric surgery serves as an alternative to laparoscopy. The technology provides the surgeon with an accurate three-dimensional view, allowing complex maneuvers while maintaining full control of the operating room. Hypothesis: We report our experience with this innovative surgery compared with laparoscopy during Roux-en-Y gastric bypass to demonstrate its safety and feasibility. The aim of this study is to evaluate potential differences between the robotic and laparoscopic techniques. Materials and methods: Our study retrospectively identified 153 consecutive obese patients who underwent either laparoscopic or robotic gastric bypass (RGB) procedures over a 2-year period at the Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia. Data on demographics, operative time, conversion rate, length of hospital stay, and mortality were collected and compared between two groups of patients: 82 patients who underwent laparoscopic procedures and 71 who underwent robotic procedures. Results: We analyzed 153 patients who underwent gastric bypass with a mean age of 42.58 years, of whom 74 were female; 71 were treated with a robotic approach and 82 with a laparoscopic approach. The mean operative time was 224.75 ± 10.4 min for RGB (including docking time) and 101.22 min for laparoscopic gastric bypass (LGB) ( Conclusion: The statistical analysis shows to support the robotic approach that had a lower incidence of complications but a longer operative duration. Based on our experience, the laparoscopic approach remains a technique with more haptic feedback than the robotic approach, making surgeons feel more confident.This study has been registered on ClinicalTrial.gov Protocol Registration and Results System with this ID: NCT05746936 for the Organization UFoggia (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05746936).

Indexed as

bariatric surgeryda Vinci robot®laparoscopic surgeryrobotic bariatric surgeryRoux-en-Y gastric bypass

Identifiers

PMID38375411
PMCPMC10875057

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.