Predictors and Outcomes Associated with Bariatric Robotic Delivery: An MBSAQIP Analysis of 318,151 Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The adoption of robotic bariatric surgery has increased dramatically over the last decade. While outcomes comparing bariatric and laparoscopic approaches are debated, little is known about patient factors responsible for the growing delivery of robotic surgery. A better understanding of these factors will help guide the planning of bariatric delivery and resource allocation. Methods: Data were extracted from the MBSAQIP registry from 2020 to 2021. The patient population was organized into primary robot-assisted sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) versus those who underwent laparoscopic procedures. Bivariate analysis and multivariable logistic regression modeling were conducted to characterize cohort differences and identify independent patient predictors of robotic selection. Results: Of 318,151, 65,951 (20.7%) underwent robot-assisted surgery. Patients undergoing robotic procedures were older (43.4 ± 11.8 vs. 43.1 ± 11.8; p < 0.001) and had higher body mass index (BMI; 45.4 ± 7.9 vs. 45.0 ± 7.6; p < 0.001). Robotic cases had higher rates of medical comorbidities, including sleep apnea, hyperlipidemia, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and diabetes mellitus. Robotic cases were more likely to undergo RYGB (27.4% vs. 26.4%; p < 0.001). Robotic patients had higher rates of numerous complications, including bleed, reoperation, and reintervention, resulting in higher serious complication rates on multivariate analysis. Independent predictors of robotic selection included increased BMI (aOR 1.02), female sex (aOR 1.04), GERD (aOR 1.12), metabolic dysfunction, RYGB (aOR 1.08), black racial status (aOR 1.11), and lower albumin (aOR 0.84). Conclusions: After adjusting for comorbidities, patients with greater metabolic comorbidities, black racial status, and those undergoing RYGB were more likely to receive robotic surgery. A more comprehensive understanding of patient factors fueling the adoption of robotic delivery, as well as those expected to benefit most, is needed to better guide healthcare resources as the landscape of bariatric surgery continues to evolve.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".