Evidence mapPaperPMID 41817616Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026

Evaluating trends and outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic bariatric surgery in patients with BMI ≥ 60 kg/m

Pattharasai Kachornvitaya, Mélissa V Wills, Juan S Barajas-Gamboa, Xinlei Zhu, Yung Lee, Suthep Udomsawaengsup, Salvador Navarrete, Ricard Corcelles, Andrew Strong, Matthew Kroh and 2 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Pattharasai KachornvitayaDigestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Mélissa V WillsDigestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Juan S Barajas-GamboaDigestive Diseases Institute, Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Xinlei ZhuDigestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Yung LeeDigestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Suthep UdomsawaengsupTreatment of Obesity and Metabolic Disease Research Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Salvador NavarreteDigestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Ricard CorcellesDigestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Andrew StrongDigestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Matthew KrohDigestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Jerry DangDigestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Valentin MocanuDigestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. mocanuv@ccf.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7855-6242

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBariatric surgery patients with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 60 kg/m2 present unique technical and perioperative challenges. While robotic-assisted bariatric surgery is thought to offer potential technical advantages, direct comparisons between robotic and laparoscopic approaches (R-BS and L-BS) in this population remains limited.

methodsAn analysis of the 2020-2023 MBSAQIP database was conducted and all patients with BMI ≥ 60 kg/m2 who underwent primary laparoscopic or robotic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) were included. Baseline demographics, operative characteristics, and 30-day postoperative outcomes were compared. Multivariable logistic regression identified independent predictors of serious complications.

resultsOf 32,295 patients, 22,211 (68.8%) were L-BS and 10,084 (31.2%) were R-BS. Significant baseline differences existed between groups, including higher rates of gastroesophageal reflux disease (28.6% vs. 26.1%, p < 0.001), and hypertension (54.7% vs. 52.8%, p = 0.001) in the R-BS group. From 2020 to 2023, the proportion of R-BS doubled from 20.4% to 41.3%, whereas the proportion of L-BS declined slightly from 79.6% to 58.7%. There was no significant difference in robotic versus laparoscopic utilization for RYGB. (27.4% vs 26.4%, p = 0.059) and operative time was significantly longer in R-BS (106.5 ± 51.4 min vs. 83.5 ± 47.0 min, p < 0.001). Rates of individual 30-day complications, including leaks, bleeding, reoperation, and readmission, were low with no significant difference between cohorts. Independent predictors of serious complications included older age, hypertension, gastroesophageal reflux disease, prior myocardial infarction, therapeutic anticoagulation, longer operative time and RYGB. The robotic approach was neither independently associated with nor protective against serious complications.

conclusionsIn patients with a BMI ≥ 60 kg/m2 undergoing elective bariatric surgery, there were no significant differences in 30-day postoperative outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic approaches despite baseline patient differences between groups. Although operative times were 27% longer for the robotic approach, its utilization increased substantially over the study period. These findings suggest that perioperative outcomes in this high-risk population are primarily determined by patient comorbidities and procedural factors rather than surgical approach, and that neither approach demonstrates superior short-term safety.

Indexed as

Bariatric SurgeryLaparoscopyObesity, MorbidRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultBody Mass IndexFemaleGastrectomyGastric BypassHumansMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsTreatment OutcomeBMI ≥ 60 kg/m2Perioperative outcomes Risk factorsRoboticRoux-en-Y gastric bypassSleeve gastrectomy

Identifiers

PMID41817616
PMCPMC13161256

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.