ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Comparison of early perioperative outcomes of robotic assisted bariatric surgery vs laparoscopic bariatric surgery in a center of excellence.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of total robotic distal gastrectomy and robot-assisted distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic hand-sewn vs. laparoscopic linear-stapled Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a propensity score-matched analysis of primary and conversion cases.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Long-Term Outcomes and Safety of Robotic Bariatric Surgery.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn this single-center retrospective study, we compare the 30 day perioperative outcomes for patients undergoing robotic vs laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Primary outcomes are serious events as defined by MBSAQIP including leak, infection, bleeding, among others; secondary outcomes include procedure time, length of stay (LOS), and readmission.
methodsWe compared 5,690 patients (2011-2023). The robotic group consisted of primary sleeves (n = 2122), primary bypasses (n = 462), conversion to bypass (n = 240), and conversion to sleeve (n = 117). The laparoscopic group consisted of primary sleeves (n = 2122), primary bypasses (n = 462), conversion to bypass (n = 48), and conversion to sleeves (n = 117). We compared outcomes using propensity score matching to minimize confounding variables due to patient selection.
resultsIn the primary outcome, blood loss was significantly less in the primary robotic bypass and sleeve groups (p < 0.01). The robotic conversion groups also had less blood loss, however it was not significant (bypass p 0.012, sleeve p = 0.45). No other statistically significant difference in adverse events was noted. For secondary outcomes, LOS was statistically significantly shorter in the primary robotic bypass, primary robotic sleeve, and robotic conversion to sleeve (p < 0.001). In the conversion to bypass, the LOS was shorter but not statistically significant (p = 0.071). The procedure time was statistically significantly longer in all robotic groups (p < 0.001) except the conversion to bypass (p = 0.77). There was no statistically significant difference in the readmission between the two groups.
conclusionsAs the largest single-center study comparing robotic vs laparoscopic perioperative outcomes, we found robotic bariatric surgery to have lower blood loss, shorter LOS, and longer procedure times. There were no other statistically significant differences in adverse events.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40542137What 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.