ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Evaluation of hemorrhage risk and the volume-outcome relationship following vertical sleeve gastrectomy amidst robotic-assisted surgery adoption.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic-assisted surgery (RAS) holds promise for maintaining bariatric outcomes, while offering a shorter adoption learning curve relative to conventional laparoscopy. However, low RAS procedure volume relative to a laparoscopic approach has limited our understanding of its impact, and the transition from laparoscopic to RAS entails a volume-outcome relationship that is not fully characterized.
methodsThis is a retrospective cohort study in a MBSAQIP accredited, bariatric surgery program. The incidence of hemorrhage following vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG) was observed from 2020 to 2023. This period was divided into an early adoption period (RAS 31% of cases) and a late adoption period (RAS 82% of cases).
resultsA total of 1250 patients underwent VSG over the study period. Laparoscopic VSG (L-VSG) and robotic-assisted VSG (RA-VSG) groups were similar in age, sex, and risk factors for postoperative bleeding. They differed in race (P < 0.0001) and ASA category (P = 0.007). The overall postoperative hemorrhage rate was 1.04% (n = 13). Hyperlipidemia was predictive of hemorrhage on univariate analysis (P = 0.045). The relative risk of hemorrhage in the robotic group dropped from 4.38 (CI 0.577-3.24) during the early adoption period to 0.28 (CI 0.083-0.96, P = 0.063) during the late adoption period. This shift with respect to hemorrhage risk was not associated with a significant reduction of hemorrhage in the RA-VSG approach (1.5% vs. 0.98%; P = 0.636), but with an increase in L-VSG risk (0.35% vs. 3.5%, P = 0.0245).
conclusionAs RA-VSG became the more frequently utilized approach within a single program, the risk of hemorrhage with L-VSG significantly increased. This suggests an unanticipated risk associated with a transition to the robotic approach. Specifically, the risk of complication increased when performing L-VSG in a practice dominated by RA-VSG.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40307471What Socratic holds
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.