Safety and Efficiency of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Revisional Bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
11 affiliations
- 1Royal Stoke University Hospital, University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust, Stoke-on-Trent ST4 6QG, UK.
- 2Immediate Care Plus, East Dundee, IL 60118, USA.
- 3School of Medicine, University of Lancashire, Preston PR1 2HE, UK.
- 4Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Case Western Reserve University/The MetroHealth System, Cleveland, OH 44109, USA.
- 5Department of Medicine, Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT 06510, USA.
- 6Academic Unit of Gastroenterology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield S5 7AU, UK.
- 7School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN, UK.
- 8Department of Gastroenterology, King's Mill Hospital, Sutton-in-Ashfield NG17 4JL, UK.
- 9Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Cooper University Hospital, Camden, NJ 08103, USA.
- 10Department of Internal Medicine, Guthrie Robert Packer Hospital, Sayre, PA 18840, USA.
- 11Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Turkey Creek Medical Center, Tennova Healthcare, Knoxville, TN 37934, USA.
Abstract
Background: Revisional bariatric surgery is increasingly performed due to weight regain, inadequate weight loss, or complications following primary bariatric procedures. These operations are technically challenging, and while laparoscopic surgery remains the standard approach, robotic platforms have gained adoption. However, comparative evidence on safety and efficiency remains limited and methodologically heterogeneous. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. PubMed/Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central were searched. Comparative studies of robotic versus laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery were included. To reduce bias from overlapping cohorts, we systematically identified and excluded duplicate datasets from national and institutional registries, prioritising the most contemporary and comprehensive reports, and retained partially overlapping studies only when the non-overlapping period spanned ≥3 years. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Outcomes analysed included length of hospital stay, operative time, postoperative complications, reoperation, anastomotic leakage and pneumonia. Random-effects models were used to generate pooled estimates. Results: Six retrospective studies encompassing 7199 robotic and 34,584 laparoscopic procedures were included. Robotic surgery was associated with a statistically significant reduction in length of hospital stay compared with laparoscopy (mean difference -1.06 days; 95% CI -1.97 to -0.15; I² = 84%). This finding was sensitive to the inclusion of a single large registry-based study. No significant differences were observed in the overall postoperative complications, reoperation rates, anastomotic leakage or pneumonia. Operative time did not differ significantly in the primary analysis. (I² = 93%), but sensitivity analyses suggested shorter procedure durations with laparoscopic surgery after exclusion of influential studies. Conclusions: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, robotic revisional bariatric surgery was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay and similar short-term safety outcomes to laparoscopic surgery. However, the very high statistical heterogeneity, observational design and potential for selection bias mean that these findings should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating rather than definitive evidence of superiority or equivalence. Larger, prospective, multi-centre studies with standardised outcome definitions and robust adjustment for confounding are needed to clarify the comparative clinical and cost-effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic approaches in revisional bariatric surgery.
Related
- Perioperative safety profile of robotic versus laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Operative efficiency and perioperative safety of overlap versus π-shaped esophagojejunostomy after totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Postoperative C-Reactive Protein as a Marker of the Early Inflammatory Response in Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Minimally Invasive Surgery for Endometrial Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis
- Delayed Umbilical Extrusion of a Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt Following Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Case Report
- Robotic versus Laparoscopic Elective Cholecystectomy in Patients with Severe Obesity: A NIS Analysis
BibTeX
@article{bharadwaj2026safety,
title = {{Safety and Efficiency of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Revisional Bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.}},
author = {Hareesha Rishab Bharadwaj and Ethan Danda and Syed Hasham Ali and Priyal Dalal and Venkata Sunkesula and Ashish Sharma and Arkadeep Dhali and Rahman Hameed Mohammed Abdul and Fariha Hasan and Abdullah Sultany and Farhan Gohar and Dushyant Singh Dahiya},
journal = {Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland)},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.3390/medsci14060623},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42930542},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Safety and Efficiency of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Revisional Bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
AU - Hareesha Rishab Bharadwaj
AU - Ethan Danda
AU - Syed Hasham Ali
AU - Priyal Dalal
AU - Venkata Sunkesula
AU - Ashish Sharma
AU - Arkadeep Dhali
AU - Rahman Hameed Mohammed Abdul
AU - Fariha Hasan
AU - Abdullah Sultany
AU - Farhan Gohar
AU - Dushyant Singh Dahiya
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/30
JO - Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland)
DO - 10.3390/medsci14060623
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42930542
AB - Background: Revisional bariatric surgery is increasingly performed due to weight regain, inadequate weight loss, or complications following primary bariatric procedures. These operations are technically challenging, and while laparoscopic surgery remains the standard approach, robotic platforms have gained adoption. However, comparative evidence on safety and efficiency remains limited and methodologically heterogeneous. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. PubMed/Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central were searched. Comparative studies of robotic versus laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery were included. To reduce bias from overlapping cohorts, we systematically identified and excluded duplicate datasets from national and institutional registries, prioritising the most contemporary and comprehensive reports, and retained partially overlapping studies only when the non-overlapping period spanned ≥3 years. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Outcomes analysed included length of hospital stay, operative time, postoperative complications, reoperation, anastomotic leakage and pneumonia. Random-effects models were used to generate pooled estimates. Results: Six retrospective studies encompassing 7199 robotic and 34,584 laparoscopic procedures were included. Robotic surgery was associated with a statistically significant reduction in length of hospital stay compared with laparoscopy (mean difference -1.06 days; 95% CI -1.97 to -0.15; I² = 84%). This finding was sensitive to the inclusion of a single large registry-based study. No significant differences were observed in the overall postoperative complications, reoperation rates, anastomotic leakage or pneumonia. Operative time did not differ significantly in the primary analysis. (I² = 93%), but sensitivity analyses suggested shorter procedure durations with laparoscopic surgery after exclusion of influential studies. Conclusions: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, robotic revisional bariatric surgery was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay and similar short-term safety outcomes to laparoscopic surgery. However, the very high statistical heterogeneity, observational design and potential for selection bias mean that these findings should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating rather than definitive evidence of superiority or equivalence. Larger, prospective, multi-centre studies with standardised outcome definitions and robust adjustment for confounding are needed to clarify the comparative clinical and cost-effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic approaches in revisional bariatric surgery.
SN - 2076-3271
ER -