Comparative analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in severely obese patients

Benefits of robotic surgery for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) are still debated. We aimed to compare conventional laparoscopic (L-RYGB) to robotic RYGB (R-RYGB) and evaluate safety, efficacy, advantages and drawbacks of each procedure. A prospective cohort study with a retrospective review approach was conducted to analyze results of L-RYGB and R-RYGB performed at a bariatric center of excellence. Patient demographics, perioperative data, weight loss, comorbidities evolution and cost were assessed. One hundred and sixty-one severely obese patients underwent R-RYGB and L-RYGB, respectively. Patient's characteristics were similar between groups. Intraoperative blood loss was similar (p = 0.91), with no requirement for blood transfusion. Median operative time was significantly reduced for R-RYGB (127 vs 160 min; p < 0.001). Seven patients (11.4%) in the L-RYGB group and 15 patients (15%) in the R-RYGB group had early postoperative complications (p = 0.63), with more anastomotic leaks and stenosis for R-RYGB during initial learning curve (p = NS). Mortality was null. Median length of hospital stay was similar (6 days; p = 0.20). Mean hospital cost was non-significantly increased for R-RYGB ($5730 vs. $4879; p = 0.34). Two years after surgery, median BMI and mean EWL% were similar for both groups (26.1 vs 26.5 kg/m² and 89.9% vs 90.9% for L-RYGB and R-RYGB groups, respectively; p = 0.71 and 0.85, respectively), with no statistically significant difference in comorbidities between the two groups (p = 0.80). R-RYGB is feasible and safe within the reach of every laparoscopic surgeon. In our series, it was associated with shorter operative time and equivalent length of stay and weight loss outcomes compared to L-RYGB. Further well-designed randomized studies are necessary to draw safe conclusions.