ArticleObesity surgery2026
Redefining Clavien-Dindo Classification in MBSAQIP: Laparoscopic Vs. Robotic Sleeve Gastrectomy.
Article in Obesity surgery, 2026. 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
introductionThe Clavien-Dindo classification (CDC) grades complications based on required interventions, yet prior MBSAQIP studies used arbitrary assignments, limiting standardization. Comparative safety between robotic (RSG) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) remains inconsistent. We assigned CDC grades using treatment-level data and compared 30-day outcomes between RSG and LSG.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using MBSAQIP data (2020-2023) comparing primary laparoscopic and robotic sleeve gastrectomy. Clavien-Dindo grades were assigned using treatment-level data, including reoperation, reintervention, readmission, and ICU care. Cumulative morbidity was assessed with the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI), with CCI ≥26.2 indicating significant morbidity. Multivariable regression evaluated associations between surgical approach and CDC grades.
resultsAmong 480,280 patients, 73% underwent LSG and 27% RSG. The RSG cohort had higher BMI (45.3 vs 44.8 kg/m², p<0.001), a greater proportion of Black patients (24.2% vs 21%, p<0.001), and more comorbidities (1.7 vs 1.6, p<0.001). Unadjusted complication rates were higher for RSG: any CDC grade (7.3% vs 6.9%, p=0.002), CDC I/II (5.9% vs 5.6%, p<0.001), CDC IVa (0.6% vs 0.5%, p=0.008), and high CCI (1.6% vs 1.4%, p<0.001). After adjustment, no significant differences were observed for any CDC grade (OR 1.017, 95% CI 0.990-1.044, p=0.226) or high CCI (OR 1.057, 95% CI 0.999-1.119, p=0.054).
conclusionThis is the first study assigning MBSAQIP complications to CDC grades based on treatment details. There were no significant differences in CDC grades or high CCI between RSG and LSG, suggesting that both procedures have comparable safety profiles.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42268538What 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.