Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intraoperative conversion and complications in robotic assisted primary and redo gastric bypass surgery

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The rise of robotic assisted surgery in the treatment of morbidly obese patients has enlarged the armamentarium for surgeons involved in bariatric surgery. This in particular is of great advantage not only in primary cases, but also in patients undergoing revisional procedures following preceding upper GI surgery. In the following, our experience with intraoperative conversions and complications in revisional robotic surgery using the Da Vinci robotic system will be reported and compared to primary robotic bypass surgery and the literature. In a 36-month period, a total of 157 minimally invasive bariatric procedures (48 robotic assisted, 109 laparoscopic) were performed. Out of 43 patients receiving a gastric bypass 32 (74%) were performed robotically. Out of these 20 (62.5%) had previous operations (RRBP): one hiatal mesh repair, one open Mason operation, eight gastric band, nine gastric sleeve, one sleeve with fundoplication. The Da Vinci Xi was used for all surgeries. 3/20 (15%) RRBP were converted to open laparotomy because of a huge left liver lobe (1), extreme adhesions (1) and short mesentery (1) (p = 0.631 vs 1/12 RBP). One out of these had to be reoperated for an insufficiency of the gastroenterostomy. 3/17 (23%) patients (RRBP) without conversion had complications: hemorrhage (1), insufficiency of biliodigestive anastomosis (1), insufficiency of gastroenterostomy (1). There was no mortality and length of hospital stay was 3.5 days in uncomplicated cases and 12.3 days in complicated cases (p < 0.05). This preliminary experience suggests, that robotic revisional surgery can be performed safely even in complicated cases. Conversion to laparoscopic or open surgery may be required when adverse anatomical conditions are present. However, the incidence of complications was not increased when conversion was performed. In this series, the incidence of complications was not greater in case of revisional surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Krawczyk M (2017) Modern surgeons: still masters of their trade or just operators of medical equipment? Ann Surg 266(5):703–705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Acquafresca PA, Palermo M, Rogula T, Duza GE, Serra E (2015) Most common robotic bariatric procedures: review and technical aspects. Ann Surg Innov Res 28:9–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13022-015-0019-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bindal V, Bhatia P, Dudeja U, Kalhan S, Khetan M, John S, Wadhera S (2015) Review of contemporary role of robotics in bariatric surgery. J Minim Access Surg 1:16–21. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-9941.147673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Tan A, Ashrafian H, Scott AJ, Mason SE, Harling L, Athanasiou T, Darzi A (2016) Robotic surgery: disruptive innovation or unfulfilled promise? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the first 30 years. Surg Endosc 10:4330–4352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4752-x (Epub 2016 Feb 19)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Knab LM, Zureikat AH, Zeh HJ III, Hogg ME (2017) Towards standardized robotic surgery in gastrointestinal oncology. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 402:1003–1014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sanchez BR, Mohr CJ, Morton JM, Safadi BY, Alami RS, Curet MJ (2005) Comparison of totally robotic laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and traditional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Obes Relat Dis 6:549–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gray KD, Moore MD, Elmously A, Bellorin O, Zarnegar R, Dakin G, Pomp A, Afaneh C (2018) Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic revisional bariatric surgery in a complex patient population. Obes Surg 28:1852–1859

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Beckmann JH, Mehdorn AS, Kersebaum JN, Schönfels W, Taivankhuu T, Laudes M, Egberts JH, Becker T (2020) Pros and cons of robotic revisional bariatric surgery. Visc Med 36:238–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dindo D, Demartins N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ecker BL, Maduka R, Ramdon A, Dempsey DT, Dumon KR, Williams NN (2016) Resident education in robotic-assisted vertical sleeve gastrectomy: outcomes and cost-analysis of 411 consecutive cases. Surg Obes Relat Dis 12:313–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2015.05.011 (Epub 2015 May 27)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hesse U, Giulini L, Thumfahrt L, Stein H (2017) Einführung der Roboterunterstützten Minimalinvasiven Chirurgie (Da Vinci Xi) unter Einbeziehung der bariatrischen Chirurgie in einem Krankenhaus der Maximalversorgung. Érfahrung mit den ersten 100 Fällen. Zeitschrift für Gastroenterol 8:55. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1605315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hesse U, Lenz J, Engel L, Dubecz A, Brucker C, Pahernik S, Stein H (2017) Implementation of the Da Vinci Xi robotic system to perform bariatric surgery in a maximum care hospital. Innov Surg Sci. https://doi.org/10.1515/iss-2001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Villamere J, Gebhart A, Vu S, Nguyen NT (2015) Utilization and outcome of laparoscopic versus robotic general and bariatric surgical procedures at Academic Medical Centers. Surg Endosc 29(7):1729–1736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3886-y (Epub 2014 Oct 16)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hagen ME, Pugin F, Chassot G, Huber O, Buchs N, Iranmanesh P, Morel P (2012) Reducing cost of surgery by avoiding complications: the model of robotic Roux en-Y gastric bypass. Obes Surg 22:52–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-011-0422-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mees ST, Kirchberg J, Weitz J (2017) Robotik in der Chirurgie. Passion Chir 2:7

    Google Scholar 

  16. Vilallonga R, Fort JM, Gonzalez O, Caubet E, Boleko A, Neff KJ, Armengol M (2012) The initial learning curve for robot-assisted sleeve gastrectomy: a surgeon’s experience while introducing the robotic technology in a Bariatric Surgery Department. Minim Invasive Surg. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/347131 (Epub 2012 Sep 17)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Ballantyne GH, Ewing D, Capella RF, Capella JF, Davis D, Schmidt HJ, Wasielewski A, Davies RJ (2005) The learning curve measured by operating times for laparoscopic and open gastric bypass: roles of surgeon’s experience, institutional experience, body mass index and fellowship training. Obes Surg 15(2):172–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hesse U, Lenz J, Thumfart L, Stein H (2018) Minimal invasive, roboterassistierte Magenbypassanlage nach offener Masongastroreduktionsplastik. Chirurg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-018-0700-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ayloo SM, Choudhury N (2015) Robotic revisional bariatric surgery: single-surgeon case series. Int J Med Robot 11(3):284–289. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1622 (Epub 2014 Oct 10)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Buchs NC, Pugin F, Azagury DE, Huber O, Chassot G, Morel P (2014) Robotic revisional bariatric surgery: a comparative study with laparoscopic and open surgery. Int J Med Robot 10(2):213–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1549 (Epub 2013 Oct 24)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hesse UJ, Lenz J, Vladimirov M, Giulini L, Dubecz A, Stein H (2021) Minimally invasive conversion of a gastric bypass into sleeve gastrectomy for postprandial hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia. Obes Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-021-05241-zU (in press)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Adipositas- und metabolische Chirurgie, Klinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral und Thoraxchirurgie, Klinikum Nürnberg, Paracelsus Medizinische Privatuniversität, Prof.-Ernst-Nathan-Str. 1, 90419, Nuremberg, Germany

    Uwe J. Hesse, Johannes Lenz, Attila Dubecz & Hubert J. Stein

Authors
  1. Uwe J. Hesse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Johannes Lenz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Attila Dubecz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hubert J. Stein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Uwe J. Hesse.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No conflict of interest. The manuscript’s compliance with the journal’s ethical policies is ensured.

Informed consent

“Does not apply”. For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hesse, U.J., Lenz, J., Dubecz, A. et al. Intraoperative conversion and complications in robotic assisted primary and redo gastric bypass surgery. J Robotic Surg 16, 235–239 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-021-01212-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-021-01212-9

Keyword

Search

Navigation