BACKGROUND : Revisional bariatric surgery is being increasingly performed and is associated with higher operative risks. Optimal techniques to minimize complications remain controversial. Here, we report a retrospective review of the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) Participant User Files (PUF) database, comparing outcomes between revision RBS and LBS. METHODS : The 2015 and 2016 MBSAQIP PUF database was retrospectively reviewed. Revision cases were identified using the Revision/Conversion Flag. Selected cases were further stratified by surgical approach. Subgroup analysis of sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass cases was performed. Case-controlled matching (1:1) was performed of the RBS and LBS cohorts, including gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy cohorts separately. Cases and controls were match by demographics, ASA classification, and preoperative comorbidities. RESULTS : 26,404 revision cases were identified (93.3% LBS, 6.7% RBS). 85.6% were female and 67% white. Mean age and BMI were 48 years and 40.9 kg/m2. 1144 matched RBS and LBS cases were identified. RBS was associated with longer operative duration (p < 0.0001), LOS (p = 0.0002) and a higher rate of ICU admissions (1.3% vs 0.5%, p = 0.05). Aggregate bleeding and leak rates were higher in the RBS cohort. In both gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy cohorts, the robotic-assisted surgery remain associated with longer operative duration (p < 0.0001). In gastric bypass, rates of aggregate leak and bleeding were higher with robotic surgery, while transfusion was higher with laparoscopy. For sleeve gastrectomy cases, reoperation, readmission, intervention, sepsis, organ space SSI, and transfusion were higher with robotic surgery. CONCLUSIONS : In this matched cohort analysis of revision bariatric surgery, both approaches were overall safe. RBS was associated with longer operative duration and higher rates of some complications. Complications were higher in the robotic sleeve cohort. Robotic is likely less cost-effective with no clear patient safety benefit, particularly for sleeve gastrectomy cases.