No relevant difference in quality of life and functional outcome at 12 months' follow-up-a randomised controlled trial comparing robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication

Evidence mapping on how to perform an optimal surgical repair of large hiatal hernias

BACKGROUND

Symptomatic and large hiatal hernia (HH) is a common disorder requiring surgical management. However, there is a lack of systematic, evidence-based recommendations summarizing recent reviews on surgical treatment of symptomatic HH. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to create evidence mapping on the key technical issues of HH repair based on the highest available evidence.

METHODS

A systematic review identified studies on eight key issues of large symptomatic HH repair. The literature was screened for the highest level of evidence (LE from level 1 to 5) according to the Oxford Center for evidence-based medicine's scale. For each topic, only studies of the highest available level of evidence were considered.

RESULTS

Out of the 28.783 studies matching the keyword algorithm, 47 were considered. The following recommendations could be deduced: minimally invasive surgery is the recommended approach (LE 1a); a complete hernia sac dissection should be considered (LE 3b); extensive division of short gastric vessels cannot be recommended; however, limited dissection of the most upper vessels may be helpful for a floppy fundoplication (LE 1a); vagus nerve should be preserved (LE 3b); a dorso-ventral cruroplasty is recommended (LE 1b); routine fundoplication should be considered to prevent postoperative gastroesophageal reflux (LE 2b); posterior partial fundoplication should be favored over other forms of fundoplication (LE 1a); mesh augmentation is indicated in large HH with paraesophageal involvement (LE 1a).

CONCLUSION

The current evidence mapping is a reasonable instrument based on the best evidence available to guide surgeons in determining optimal symptomatic and large HH repair.

Laparoscopic versus robotic abdominal and pelvic surgery: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The current evidence is inconclusive on whether robotic or laparoscopic surgery is the optimal platform for minimally invasive surgery. Existing comparisons techniques focus on short-term outcomes only, while potentially being confounded by a lack of standardisation in robotic procedures. There is a pertinent need for an up-to-date comparison between minimally invasive surgical techniques. We aimed to systematically review randomised controlled trials comparing robotic and laparoscopic techniques in major surgery.

METHODS

Embase, Medline and Cochrane Library were searched from their inception to 13th September 2022. Included studies were randomised controlled trials comparing robotic and laparoscopic techniques in abdominal and pelvic surgery. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Short-term, health-related quality of life, and long-term, outcomes were analysed.

RESULTS

Forty-five studies, across thirteen procedures, involving 7364 patients were included. All of the studies reported non-significant differences in mortality between robotic and laparoscopic surgery. In majority of studies, there was no significant difference in complication rate (n = 31/35, 85.6%), length of postoperative stay (n = 27/32, 84.4%), and conversion rate (n = 15/18, 83.3%). Laparoscopic surgery was associated with shorter operative time (n = 16/31, 51.6%) and lower total cost (n = 11/13, 84.6%). Twenty three studies reported on quality of life outcomes; majority (n = 14/23, 60.9%) found no significant differences.

CONCLUSION

There were no significant differences between robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery with regards to mortality and morbidity outcomes in the majority of studies. Robotic surgery was frequently associated with longer operative times and higher overall cost. Selected studies found potential benefits in post-operative recovery time, and patient-reported outcomes; however, these were not consistent across procedures and trials, with most studies being underpowered to detect differences in secondary outcomes. Future research should focus on assessing quality of life, and long-term outcomes to further elucidate where the robotic platform could lead to patient benefits, as the technology evolves.

Fragility of statistically significant findings from randomized trials in comparing laparoscopic versus robotic abdominopelvic surgeries

BACKGROUND

Utility of robotic over laparoscopic approach has been an area of debate across all surgical specialties over the past decade. The fragility index (FI) is a metric that evaluates the frailty of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) findings by altering the status of patients from an event to non-event until significance is lost. This study aims to evaluate the robustness of RCTs comparing laparoscopic and robotic abdominopelvic surgeries through the FI.

METHODS

A search was conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE for RCTs with dichotomous outcomes comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery in general surgery, gynecology, and urology. The FI and reverse fragility Index (RFI) metrics were used to assess the strength of findings reported by RCTs, and bivariate correlation was conducted to analyze relationships between FI and trial characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 21 RCTs were included, with a median sample size of 89 participants (Interquartile range [IQR] 62-126). The median FI was 2 (IQR 0-15) and median RFI 5.5 (IQR 4-8.5). The median FI was 3 (IQR 1-15) for general surgery (n = 7), 2 (0.5-3.5) for gynecology (n = 4), and 0 (IQR 0-8.5) for urology RCTs (n = 4). Correlation was found between increasing FI and decreasing p-value, but not sample size, number of outcome events, journal impact factor, loss to follow-up, or risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

RCTs comparing laparoscopic and robotic abdominal surgery did not prove to be very robust. While possible advantages of robotic surgery may be emphasized, it remains novel and requires further concrete RCT data.

Robotic Surgery and Functional Esophageal Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The functional disease of the esophago-gastric junction (EGJ) is one of the most common health problems. It often happens that patients suffering from GERD need surgical management. The laparoscopic fundoplication has been considered the gold standard surgical treatment for functional diseases of the EGJ. The aim of our meta-analysis is to investigate functional outcomes after robotic fundoplication compared with conventional laparoscopic fundoplication. A prospective search of online databases was performed by two independent reviewers using the search string "robotic and laparoscopic fundoplication", including all the articles from 1996 to December 2021. The risk of bias within each study was assessed with the Cochrane ROBINS-I and RoB 2.0 tools. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.4. In addition, sixteen studies were included in the final analysis, involving only four RCTs. The primary endpoints were functional outcomes after laparoscopic (LF) and robotic fundoplication (RF). No significant differences between the two groups were found in 30-day readmission rates (p = 0.73), persistence of symptomatology at follow-up (p = 0.60), recurrence (p = 0.36), and reoperation (p = 0.81). The laparoscopic fundoplication represents the gold standard treatment for the functional disease of the EGJ. According to our results, the robotic approach seems to be safe and feasible as well. Further randomized controlled studies are required to better evaluate the advantages of robotic fundoplication.

A systematic review of robot-assisted anti-reflux surgery to examine reporting standards

Robot-assisted anti-reflux surgery (RA-ARS) is increasingly being used to treat refractory gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. The IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term follow up) Collaboration's framework aims to improve the evaluation of surgical innovation, but the extent to which the evolution of RA-ARS has followed this model is unclear. This study aims to evaluate the standard to which RA-ARS has been reported during its evolution, in relation to the IDEAL framework. A systematic review from inception to June 2020 was undertaken to identify all primary English language studies pertaining to RA-ARS. Studies of paraoesophageal or giant hernias were excluded. Data extraction was informed by IDEAL guidelines and summarised by narrative synthesis. Twenty-three studies were included: two case reports, five case series, ten cohort studies and six randomised controlled trials. The majority were single-centre studies comparing RA-ARS and laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Eleven (48%) studies reported patient selection criteria, with high variability between studies. Few studies reported conflicts of interest (30%), funding arrangements (26%), or surgeons' prior robotic experience (13%). Outcome reporting was heterogeneous; 157 distinct outcomes were identified. No single outcome was reported in all studies.The under-reporting of important aspects of study design and high degree of outcome heterogeneity impedes the ability to draw meaningful conclusions from the body of evidence. There is a need for further well-designed prospective studies and randomised trials, alongside agreement about outcome selection, measurement and reporting for future RA-ARS studies.

Randomized controlled trial of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic fundoplication: 12 years follow-up

Aims

Numerous reports have addressed the feasibility and safety of robotic-assisted (RALF) and conventional laparoscopic fundoplication (CLF). Long-term follow-up after direct comparison of these two minimally invasive approaches is scarce. The aim of the present study was to assess long-term disease-specific symptoms and quality of life (QOL) in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) treated with RALF or CLF after 12 years in the randomized ROLAF trial.

Methods

In the ROLAF trial 40 patients with GERD were randomized to RALF (n = 20) or CLF (n = 20) between August 2004 and December 2005. At 12 years after surgery, all patients were invited to complete the standardized Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) and the Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia questionnaire (QOLRAD). Failure of treatment was assessed according to Lundell score.

Results

The GSRS score was similar for RALF (n = 15) and CLF (n = 15) at 12 years´ follow-up (2.1 ± 0.7 vs. 2.2 ± 1.3, p = 0.740). There was no difference in QOLRAD score (RALF 6.4 ± 1.2; CLF 6.4 ± 1.5, p = 0.656) and the QOLRAD score sub items. Long-term failure of treatment according to the definition by Lundell was not different between RALF and CLF [46% (6/13) vs. 33% (4/12), p = 0.806].

Conclusion

In accordance with previous short-term outcome studies, the long-term results 12 years after surgery showed no difference between RALF and CLF regarding postoperative symptoms, QOL and failure of treatment. Relief of symptoms and patient satisfaction were high after both procedures on the long-term. Registration number: DRKS00014690 (https://www.drks.de).

The Evidence Behind Robot-Assisted Abdominopelvic Surgery : A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Use of robot-assisted surgery has increased dramatically since its advent in the 1980s, and nearly all surgical subspecialties have adopted it. However, whether it has advantages compared with laparoscopy or open surgery is unknown.

PURPOSE

To assess the quality of evidence and outcomes of robot-assisted surgery compared with laparoscopy and open surgery in adults.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to April 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials that compared robot-assisted abdominopelvic surgery with laparoscopy, open surgery, or both.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently extracted study data and risk of bias.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 50 studies with 4898 patients were included. Of the 39 studies that reported incidence of Clavien-Dindo complications, 4 (10%) showed fewer complications with robot-assisted surgery. The majority of studies showed no difference in intraoperative complications, conversion rates, and long-term outcomes. Overall, robot-assisted surgery had longer operative duration than laparoscopy, but no obvious difference was seen versus open surgery.

LIMITATIONS

Heterogeneity was present among and within the included surgical subspecialties, which precluded meta-analysis. Several trials may not have been powered to assess relevant differences in outcomes.

CONCLUSION

There is currently no clear advantage with existing robotic platforms, which are costly and increase operative duration. With refinement, competition, and cost reduction, future versions have the potential to improve clinical outcomes without the existing disadvantages.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None. (PROSPERO: CRD42020182027).

SAGES guidelines for the surgical treatment of gastroesophageal reflux (GERD)

BACKGROUND

Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) is an extremely common condition with several medical and surgical treatment options. A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations to support clinicians, patients, and others in decisions regarding the treatment of GERD with an emphasis on evaluating different surgical techniques.

METHODS

Literature reviews were conducted for 4 key questions regarding the surgical treatment of GERD in both adults and children: surgical vs. medical treatment, robotic vs. laparoscopic fundoplication, partial vs. complete fundoplication, and division vs. preservation of short gastric vessels in adults or maximal versus minimal dissection in pediatric patients. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject experts. Recommendations for future research were also proposed.

RESULTS

The panel provided seven recommendations for adults and children with GERD. All recommendations were conditional due to very low, low, or moderate certainty of evidence. The panel conditionally recommended surgical treatment over medical management for adults with chronic or chronic refractory GERD. There was insufficient evidence for the panel to make a recommendation regarding surgical versus medical treatment in children. The panel suggested that once the decision to pursue surgical therapy is made, adults and children with GERD may be treated with either a robotic or a laparoscopic approach, and either partial or complete fundoplication based on surgeon-patient shared decision-making and patient values. In adults, the panel suggested either division or non-division of the short gastric vessels is appropriate, and that children should undergo minimal dissection during fundoplication.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations should provide guidance with regard to surgical decision-making in the treatment of GERD and highlight the importance of shared decision-making and patient values to optimize patient outcomes. Pursuing the identified research needs may improve future versions of guidelines for the treatment of GERD.

Surgical treatment of GERD: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) has a high worldwide prevalence in adults and children. There is uncertainty regarding medical versus surgical therapy and different surgical techniques. This review assessed outcomes of antireflux surgery versus medical management of GERD in adults and children, robotic versus laparoscopic fundoplication, complete versus partial fundoplication, and minimal versus maximal dissection in pediatric patients.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched (2004-2019) to identify randomized control and non-randomized comparative studies. Two independent reviewers screened for eligibility. Random effects meta-analysis was performed on comparative data. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias and Newcastle Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

From 1473 records, 105 studies were included. Most had high or uncertain risk of bias. Analysis demonstrated that anti-reflux surgery was associated with superior short-term quality of life compared to PPI (Std mean difference =  - 0.51, 95%CI  - 0.63, - 0.40, I² = 0%) however short-term symptom control was not significantly superior (RR = 0.75, 95%CI 0.47, 1.21, I² = 82%). A proportion of patients undergoing operative treatment continue PPI treatment (28%). Robotic and laparoscopic fundoplication outcomes were similar. Compared to total fundoplication, partial fundoplication was associated with higher rates of prolonged PPI usage (RR = 2.06, 95%CI 1.08, 3.94, I² = 45%). There was no statistically significant difference for long-term symptom control (RR = 0.94, 95%CI 0.85, 1.04, I² = 53%) or long-term dysphagia (RR = 0.73, 95%CI 0.52, 1.02, I² = 0%). Ien, minimal dissection during fundoplication was associated with lower reoperation rates than maximal dissection (RR = 0.21, 95%CI 0.06, 0.67).

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence regarding the optimal treatment of GERD often suffers from high risk of bias. Additional high-quality randomized control trials may further inform surgical decision making in the treatment of GERD.

Robot-assisted vs. laparoscopic repair of complete upside-down stomach hiatal hernia (the RATHER-study): a prospective comparative single center study

BACKGROUND

Complete upside-down stomach (cUDS) hernias are a subgroup of large hiatal hernias characterized by high risk of life-threatening complications and technically challenging surgical repair including complex mediastinal dissection. In a prospective, comparative clinical study, we evaluated intra- and postoperative outcomes, quality of life and symptomatic recurrence rates in patients with cUDS undergoing robot-assisted, as compared to standard laparoscopic repair (the RATHER-study).

METHODS

All patients with cUDS herniation requiring elective surgery in our institution between July 2015 and June 2019 were evaluated. Patients undergoing primary open surgery or additional associated procedures were not considered. Primary endpoints were intra- and postoperative complications, 30-day morbidity, and mortality. During the 8-53 months follow-up period, patients were contacted by telephone to assess symptoms associated to recurrence, whereas quality of life was evaluated utilizing the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease-Health-Related Quality of Life (GERD-HRQL) questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 55 patients were included. 36 operations were performed with robot-assisted (Rob-G), and 19 with standard laparoscopic (Lap-G) technique. Patients characteristics were similar in both groups. Median operation time was 232 min. (IQR: 145-420) in robot-assisted vs. 163 min. (IQR:112-280) in laparoscopic surgery (p < 0.001). Intraoperative complications occurred in 5/36 (12.5%) cases in the Rob-G group and in 5/19 (26%) cases in the Lap-G group (p = 0.28). No conversion was necessary in either group. Minor postoperative complications occurred in 13/36 (36%) Rob-G patients and 4/19 (21%) Lap-G patients (p = 0.36). Mortality or major complications did not occur in either group. Two asymptomatic recurrences were observed in the Rob-G group only. No patient required revision surgery. Finally, all patients expressed satisfaction for treatment outcome, as indicated by similar GERD-HRQL scores.

CONCLUSION

While robot-assisted surgery provides additional precision, enhanced visualization, and greater feasibility in cUDS hiatal hernia repair, its clinical outcome is at least equal to that obtained by standard laparoscopic surgery.

Research quality and transparency, outcome measurement and evidence for safety and effectiveness in robot-assisted surgery: systematic review

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted surgery (RAS) has potential panspecialty surgical benefits. High-quality evidence for widespread implementation is lacking. This systematic review aimed to assess the RAS evidence base for the quality of randomized evidence on safety and effectiveness, specialty 'clustering', and outcomes for RAS research.

METHODS

A systematic review was undertaken according to PRISMA guidelines. All pathologies and procedures utilizing RAS were included. Studies were limited to RCTs, the English language and publication within the last decade. The main outcomes selected for the review design were safety and efficacy, and study purpose. Secondary outcomes were study characteristics, funding and governance.

RESULTS

Searches identified 7142 titles, from which 183 RCTs were identified for data extraction. The commonest specialty was urology (35·0 per cent). There were just 76 unique study populations, indicating significant overlap of publications; 103 principal studies were assessed further. Only 64·1 per cent of studies reported a primary outcome measure, with 29·1 per cent matching their registration/protocol. Safety was assessed in 68·9 per cent of trials; operative complications were the commonest measure. Forty-eight per cent of trials reported no significant difference in safety between RAS and comparator, and 11 per cent reported RAS to be superior. Efficacy or effectiveness was assessed in 80·6 per cent of trials; 43 per cent of trials showed no difference between RAS and comparator, and 24 per cent reported that RAS was superior. Funding was declared in 47·6 per cent of trials.

CONCLUSION

The evidence base for RAS is of limited quality and variable transparency in reporting. No patterns of harm to patients were identified. RAS has potential to be beneficial, but requires continued high-quality evaluation.

Non-active implantable device treating acid reflux with a new dynamic treatment approach: 1-year results : RefluxStop™ device; a new method in acid reflux surgery obtaining CE mark

Background

RefluxStop™ is an implantable, non-active, single use device used in the laparoscopic treatment of GERD. RefluxStop™ aims to block the movement of the LES up into the thorax and keep the angle of His in its original, anatomically correct position. This new device restores normal anatomy, leaving the food passageway unaffected.

Methods

In a prospective, single arm, multicentric clinical investigation analyzing safety and effectiveness of the RefluxStop™ device to treat GERD, 50 subjects with chronic GERD were operated using a standardized surgical technique between December 2016 and September 2017. They were followed up for 1 year (CE-mark investigation 6-months). Primary safety outcome was prevalence of serious adverse events related to the device, and primary effectiveness outcome reduction of GERD symptoms based on GERD-HRQL score. Secondary outcomes were prevalence of adverse events other than serious adverse events, reduction of total acid exposure time in 24-h pH monitoring, and reduction in average daily PPI usage and subject satisfaction.

Results

There were no serious adverse events related to the device. Average GERD-HRQL total score at 1 year improved 86% from baseline (p < 0.001). 24-h pH monitoring compared to baseline showed a mean reduction percentage of overall time with pH < 4 from 16.35 to 0.80% at the 6-month visit (p < 0.001), with 98% of subjects showing normal 24-h pH. At 1 year: No new cases of dysphagia were recorded, present in 2 subjects, which existed already at baseline. Regular daily PPI usage occurred in all 50 subjects at baseline. At 1-year follow-up, only 1 subject took regular daily PPIs due to a too low placement of the device thereby prohibiting its function. None or minimal occasional episodes of regurgitation occurred in 97.8% of evaluable subjects. Gas bloating disappeared in 30 subjects and improved in 7 subjects.

Conclusion

The new principle of RefluxStop™ is safe and effective to treat GERD according to investigation results. At 1-year follow-up, both the GERD-HRQL score and 24-h pH monitoring results indicate success for the new treatment principle. In addition, with the dynamic treatment for acid reflux, which avoids compressing the food passageway, prevalence of dysphagia and gas bloating are significantly reduced.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02759094. Registered 3 May, 2016,

Safety of robotic assisted laparoscopic recurrent paraesophageal hernia repair: insights from a large single institution experience

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic repair of recurrent as opposed to primary paraesophageal hernias (PEHs) are historically associated with increased peri-operative complication rates, worsened outcomes, and increased conversion rates. The robotic platform may aid surgeons in these complex revision procedures. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing robotic assisted laparoscopic (RAL) repair of recurrent as opposed to primary PEHs.

METHODS

Patients undergoing RAL primary and recurrent PEH repairs from 2009 to 2017 at a single institution were reviewed. Demographics, use of mesh, estimated blood loss, intra-operative complications, conversion rates, operative time, rates of esophageal/gastric injury, hospital length of stay, re-admission/re-operation rates, recurrence, dysphagia, gas bloat, and pre- and post-operative proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use were analyzed. Analysis was accomplished using Chi-square test/Fischer's exact test for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables.

RESULTS

There were 298 patients who underwent RAL PEH repairs (247 primary, 51 recurrent). They were followed for a median (interquartile range) of 120 (44, 470) days. There were no significant differences in baseline demographics between groups. Patients in the recurrent PEH group had longer operative times, increased use of mesh, and increased length of hospital stay. They were also less likely to undergo fundoplication. There were no significant differences in estimated blood loss, incidence of intra-operative complications, re-admission rates, incidence of post-operative dysphagia and gas bloat, and incidence of post-operative PPI use. There were no conversions to open operative intervention or gastric/esophageal injury/leaks.

CONCLUSIONS

Although repair of recurrent PEHs are historically associated with worse outcomes, in this series, RAL recurrent PEH repairs have similar peri-operative and post-operative outcomes as compared to primary PEH repairs. Whether this is secondary to the potential advantages afforded by the robotic platform deserves further study.

Morbidity and mortality in complex robot-assisted hiatal hernia surgery: 7-year experience in a high-volume center

INTRODUCTION

Published data regarding robot-assisted hiatal hernia repair are mainly limited to small cohorts. This study aimed to provide information on the morbidity and mortality of robot-assisted complex hiatal hernia repair and redo anti-reflux surgery in a high-volume center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients that underwent robot-assisted hiatal hernia repair, redo hiatal hernia repair, and anti-reflux surgery between 2011 and 2017 at the Meander Medical Centre, Amersfoort, the Netherlands were evaluated. Primary endpoints were 30-day morbidity and mortality. Major complications were defined as Clavien-Dindo ≥ IIIb.

RESULTS

Primary surgery 211 primary surgeries were performed by two surgeons. The median age was 67 (IQR 58-73) years. 84.4% of patients had a type III or IV hernia (10.9% Type I; 1.4% Type II; 45.5% Type III; 38.9% Type IV, 1.4% no herniation). In 3.3% of procedures, conversion was required. 17.1% of patients experienced complications. The incidence of major complications was 5.2%. Ten patients (4.7%) were readmitted within 30 days. Symptomatic early recurrence occurred in two patients (0.9%). The 30-day mortality was 0.9%. Redo surgery 151 redo procedures were performed by two surgeons. The median age was 60 (IQR 51-68) years. In 2.0%, the procedure was converted. The overall incidence of complications was 10.6%, while the incidence of major complications was 2.6%. Three patients (2.0%) were readmitted within 30 days. One patient (0.7%) experienced symptomatic early recurrence. No patients died in the 30-day postoperative period.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides valuable information on robot-assisted laparoscopic repair of primary or recurrent hiatal hernia and anti-reflux surgery for both patient and surgeon. Serious morbidity of 5.2% in primary surgery and 2.6% in redo surgery, in this large series with a high surgeon caseload, has to be outweighed by the gain in quality of life or relief of serious medical implications of hiatal hernia when counseling for surgical intervention.

Two years of experience with robot-assisted anti-reflux surgery: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Robot-assisted anti-reflux surgery (RAAS) is an alternative to conventional laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery (CLAS). The purpose of this study was to evaluate initial Danish experiences with robot-assisted anti-reflux surgery compared to conventional laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery incorporating follow-up and evaluation of possible learning curve.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients undergoing primary RAAS or CLAS at The Department of Surgery A, Odense University Hospital and The Department of General Surgery, Kolding Hospital from April 2013 to April 2015 was included. Demographic data, comorbidity, docking time, length of procedure, type of fundic wrap as well as perioperative complications and postoperative complications, need for reoperation or any upper gastrointestinal endoscopy from surgery to final follow-up was retrospectively extracted from patient records.

RESULTS

103 patients were included in this study. 39 patients underwent RAAS and 64 patients underwent CLAS. There were no statistically significant differences in demographic data or comorbidities except distribution of heart disease (RAAS: 5.1% vs. CLAS: 18.8%, p = 0.05) and previous abdominal surgery (RAAS: 28.2% vs. CLAS: 48.4%, p = 0.04). Duration of surgery was significantly increased in patients undergoing RAAS (RAAS: 135 ± 27 min vs. CLAS: 86 ± 19 min, p < 0.01). There was no statistical significant difference in intraoperative complications (p = 0.20), 30-day postoperative complication rate (p = 0.20) or mortality (p = 1.00). At follow-up in April 2016, there were no statistically significant differences in patients having undergone upper endoscopy postoperatively (p = 0.92), the use of anti-secretory drugs (p = 0.46) or patients having undergone reoperation (p = 0.60). Reasons for reoperation were significantly dependent on type of fundic wrap with reoperation of Nissen fundoplication being dysphagia and reoperation of Toupet being recurrent reflux (p = 0.008). There was no clearly determined learning curve.

CONCLUSIONS

RAAS was safe, feasible and with equal efficacy to CLAS. There were however no particular advantages to performing antireflux surgery as robot-assisted procedures neither intra-operatively nor at follow-up.

Robotic technological aids in esophageal surgery

Robotic technology is an emerging technology that has been developed in order to overcome some limitations of the standard laparoscopic approach, offering a stereoscopic three-dimensional visualization of the surgical field, increased maneuverability of the surgical tools with consequent increased movement accuracy and precision and improved ergonomics. It has been used for the surgical treatment of most benign esophageal disorders. More recently, it has been proposed also for patients with operable esophageal cancer. The current evidence shows that there are no real benefits of the robotic technology over conventional laparoscopy in patients undergoing a fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), hiatal closure for giant hiatal hernia, or Heller myotomy for achalasia. A few small studies suggest potential advantages in patients undergoing redo surgery for failed fundoplication or Heller myotomy, but large comparative studies are needed to better clarify the role of the robotic technology in these patients. Robot-assisted esophagectomy seems to be safe and effective in selected patients; however, there are no data showing superiority of this approach over both conventional laparoscopic and open surgery. The short-term and long-term oncologic results of ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are awaited to validate this approach for the treatment of esophageal cancer.

Limited Evidence for Robot-assisted Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

To evaluate available evidence on robot-assisted surgery compared with open and laparoscopic surgery.

METHOD

The databases Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials comparing robot-assisted surgery with open and laparoscopic surgery regardless of surgical procedure. Meta-analyses were performed on each outcome with appropriate data material available. Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias was used to evaluate risk of bias on a study level. The GRADE approach was used to evaluate the quality of evidence of the meta-analyses.

RESULTS

This review included 20 studies comprising 981 patients. The meta-analyses found no significant differences between robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery regarding blood loss, complication rates, and hospital stay. A significantly longer operative time was found for robot-assisted surgery. Open versus robot-assisted surgery was investigated in 3 studies. A lower blood loss and a longer operative time were found after robot-assisted surgery. No other difference was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

At this point there is not enough evidence to support the significantly higher costs with the implementation of robot-assisted surgery.

[Robotics in the operating room : Out of the niche into widespread application]

In the last few years robotic surgery has progressed from being confined to a small niche to a widespread application in routine visceral surgery; however, evidence for superiority of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopy from randomized studies with a sufficient number of patients is still lacking in most fields of visceral surgery. For complex operations that necessitate an extensive reconstruction phase, such as pancreatectomy, gastrectomy and esophagectomy, there is a potential benefit for the permanent and justified use of robotic surgery. Even in operations where delicate nerve preparation and radical surgical resection are simultaneously necessary, such as rectal resection, robotic surgery may provide certain benefits. In the long term there is a great potential for the integration of innovative techniques, such as navigation or other medical imaging procedures into robotic surgery, which can currently only partially be estimated. Care must be taken to avoid premature euphoria; however, due to the assumed great potential there is an urgent need for randomized studies to evaluate the possible benefits of robotic surgical techniques in visceral surgery in order to generate evidence for the welfare of patients.

European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery

Following an extensive literature search and a consensus conference with subject matter experts the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. Robotic surgery is still at its infancy, and there is a great potential in sophisticated electromechanical systems to perform complex surgical tasks when these systems evolve. 2. To date, in the vast majority of clinical settings, there is little or no advantage in using robotic systems in general surgery in terms of clinical outcome. Dedicated parameters should be addressed, and high quality research should focus on quality of care instead of routine parameters, where a clear advantage is not to be expected. 3. Preliminary data demonstrates that robotic system have a clinical benefit in performing complex procedures in confined spaces, especially in those that are located in unfavorable anatomical locations. 4. There is a severe lack of high quality data on robotic surgery, and there is a great need for rigorously controlled, unbiased clinical trials. These trials should be urged to address the cost-effectiveness issues as well. 5. Specific areas of research should include complex hepatobiliary surgery, surgery for gastric and esophageal cancer, revisional surgery in bariatric and upper GI surgery, surgery for large adrenal masses, and rectal surgery. All these fields show some potential for a true benefit of using current robotic systems. 6. Robotic surgery requires a specific set of skills, and needs to be trained using a dedicated, structured training program that addresses the specific knowledge, safety issues and skills essential to perform this type of surgery safely and with good outcomes. It is the responsibility of the corresponding professional organizations, not the industry, to define the training and credentialing of robotic basic skills and specific procedures. 7. Due to the special economic environment in which robotic surgery is currently employed special care should be taken in the decision making process when deciding on the purchase, use and training of robotic systems in general surgery. 8. Professional organizations in the sub-specialties of general surgery should review these statements and issue detailed, specialty-specific guidelines on the use of specific robotic surgery procedures in addition to outlining the advanced robotic surgery training required to safely perform such procedures.

Robot-assisted oesophageal and gastric surgery for benign disease: antireflux operations and Heller's myotomy

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted general surgery operations are being performed more frequently. This review investigates whether robotic assistance results in significant advantages or disadvantages for the operative treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and achalasia.

METHODS

The electronic databases (Medline, Embase, PubMed) were searched for original English language publications for antireflux surgery and Heller's myotomy between January 1990 and December 2013.

RESULTS

Thirty-three publications included antireflux operations and 20 included Heller's myotomy. The publications indicate that the safety and effectiveness of robotic surgery is similar to that of conventional minimally invasive surgery for both operations. The six randomized trials of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic antireflux surgery showed no significant advantages but significantly higher costs for the robotic method. Gastric perforation during non-redo robotic fundoplication occurred in four trials.

CONCLUSIONS

No consistent advantage for robot-assisted antireflux surgery has been demonstrated, and there is an increased cost with current robotic technology. A reported advantage for robotic in reducing the perforation rate during Heller's myotomy for achalasia remains unproven. Gastric perforation during robotic fundoplication may be due to the lack of haptic feedback combined with the superhuman strength of the robot.

Thoracoscopic versus robotic approaches: advantages and disadvantages

The overall advantages of thoracoscopy over thoracotomy in terms of patient recovery have been fairly well established. The use of robotics, however, is a newer and less proven modality in the realm of thoracic surgery. Robotics offers distinct advantages and disadvantages in comparison with video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. Robotic technology is now used for a variety of complex cardiac, urologic, and gynecologic procedures including mitral valve repair and microsurgical treatment of male infertility. This article addresses the potential benefits and limitations of using the robotic platform for the performance of a variety of thoracic operations.

Robotic Nissen fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

Since its introduction, the Da Vinci surgical system for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) has been the subject of much controversy. Several prospective randomized controlled trials, conducted to assess its effectiveness and safety, have revealed differences. We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficiency and safety of robotic Nissen fundoplication for GERD.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and OVID-MEDLINE, from 1950 to the present, with daily updates generated by a computer, to identify all published papers on robotic Nissen fundoplication for the treatment of GERD. The meta-analysis was performed by Review Manager Version 5.0. Differences of the overall effect were considered significant at P < 0.05 with a 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI).

RESULTS

Five studies with a collective total of 160 patients were included. Apart from intra-operative and post-operative complications, which were excluded because of incomplete primary data, there were no significant differences in outcomes, including of total operation interval (P = 0.16), effective operation interval (P = 0.95), post-operative dysphagia (P = 0.94), intra-operative conversion (P = 0.94), re-operation (P = 0.43), hospital stay (P = 0.97) and in-hospital costs (P = 0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

As current data do not clarify the advantages of the Da Vinci surgical system in Nissen fundoplication for GERD, we believe that a large a multi-center controlled trial is warranted.

Update on fundoplication for the treatment of GERD

Rudolph Nissen firstly implemented the idea of surgical treatment of gastroesophageal reflux more than 55 years ago. Today, laparoscopic fundoplication has become the surgical "golden standard" for the treatment of GERD. However, the initial enthusiasm and increasing number of performed procedures in the early 1990s declined dramatically between 2000 and 2006. Despite its excellent outcome, laparoscopic fundoplication is only offered to a minority of patients who are suffering from GERD. In this article we review the current indications for antireflux surgery, technical and intraoperative aspects of fundoplication, perioperative complications as well as short and long-term outcome. The focus is on the laparoscopic approach as the current surgical procedure of choice.

Reflux and sex: what drives testing, what drives treatment?

Gastroesophageal reflux (GER) affects ∼10-20% of American adults. Although symptoms are equally common in men and women, we hypothesized that sex influences diagnostic and therapeutic approaches in patients with GER. PubMed database between 1997 and October 2011 was searched for English language studies describing symptoms, consultative visits, endoscopic findings, use and results of ambulatory pH study, and surgical therapy for GER. Using data from Nationwide Inpatient Sample, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, we determined the sex distribution for admissions and reflux surgery between 1997 and 2008. Studies on symptoms or consultative visits did not show sex-specific differences. Even though women are less likely to have esophagitis or Barrett's esophagus, endoscopic studies enrolled as many women as men, and women were more likely to undergo ambulatory pH studies with a female predominance in studies from the US. Surgical GER treatment is more commonly performed in men. However, studies from the US showed an equal sex distribution, with Nationwide Inpatient Sample data demonstrating an increase in women who accounted for 63% of the annual fundoplications in 2008. Despite less common or severe mucosal disease, women are more likely to undergo invasive diagnostic testing. In the US, women are also more likely to undergo antireflux surgery. These results suggest that healthcare-seeking behavior and socioeconomic factors rather than the biology of disease influence the clinical approaches to reflux disease.

Meta-analysis of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND

Conventional laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (CLF) is generally considered the surgical approach of choice for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic fundoplication (RALF) has recently been introduced into laparoscopic clinical practice with the aim of improving surgical performance by eliminating tremors and fatigue. A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) was performed to compare RALF and CLF.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, ISI Web of Knowledge CPCI-S and The Cochrane Library were searched and the methodological quality of included trials was evaluated. Outcomes evaluated were intraoperative, dysphagia, flatulence, antisecretory medication, satisfaction with intervention, operation time, hospital stay and total cost. Results were pooled in meta-analyses as risk ratios and weighted mean differences (WMD).

RESULTS

Of 221 patients in six RCTs, 111 were allocated to CLF and 110 to RALF. RALF prolonged total time necessary to carry out fundoplication (WMD 3.17 (95% confidence interval. 2.33-4.00) min; P < 0.00001, χ(2) P = 0.25, I(2) = 24%). Operation complication, antisecretory medication, satisfaction with intervention, the time needed for hiatal dissection, the time from incision to completion of sutures, the total operation time and total cost were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Clinical outcomes from RALF were comparable to CLF approach, but RALF prolonged the operation time. Currently, CLF should be routinely used as costs are lower.

Twenty years of laparoscopic fundoplication for GERD

The first laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication was performed 20 years ago. Surgical management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) should be offered only to appropriately studied and selected patients, with the ultimate aim of improving the well-being of the individual, the "quality of life." The choice of fundoplication should be dictated by the surgeon's preference and experience.

Robotic surgery claims on United States hospital websites

To examine the prevalence and content of robotic surgery information presented on websites of U.S. hospitals. We completed a systematic analysis of 400 randomly selected U.S. hospital websites in June of 2010. Data were collected on the presence and location of robotic surgery information on a hospital's website; use of images or text provided by the manufacturer; use of direct link to manufacturer website; statements of clinical superiority; statements of improved cancer outcome; mention of a comparison group for a statement; citation of supporting data and mention of specific risks. Forty-one percent of hospital websites described robotic surgery. Among these, 37% percent presented robotic surgery on their homepage, 73% used manufacturer-provided stock images or text, and 33% linked to a manufacturer website. Statements of clinical superiority were made on 86% of websites, with 32% describing improved cancer control, and 2% described a reference group. No hospital website mentioned risks. Materials provided by hospitals regarding the surgical robot overestimate benefits, largely ignore risks and are strongly influenced by the manufacturer.

Whether robot-assisted laparoscopic fundoplication is better for gastroesophageal reflux disease in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic fundoplication is an effective, minimally invasive surgical technique for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) that failed to be treated with medicine, with wide implementation its technical limitations have become increasingly clear. Recently, robot-assisted laparoscopic fundoplication (RALF) was considered a new approach that makes up for the deficiency of conventional laparoscopic fundoplication (CLF). This systematic review aimed to assess the feasibility and efficiency of robot-assisted laparoscopic fundoplication for GERD.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently searched and identified seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and four clinical controlled trials (CCTs) of RALF versus CLF for GERD in the Cochrane database, Medline, Embase, and Science citation index between 2001 and 2009. The main outcomes were operating time, complication rate, hospital stay, and costs. The meta-analysis was performed by Review Manager 5.0 software. The effect size of the clinical outcomes was evaluated by odds ratio (OR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and standard mean difference (SMD) according to different data type. Heterogeneity and sensitivity analysis were used to account for rationality of pooling data and sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Of 483 studies found, a total of 11 trials were included in this review; among 533 patients, 198 patients underwent RALF and 335 patients underwent CLF. The results of meta-analysis showed that the postoperative complication rate (OR = 0.35, 95% CI = [0.13, 0.93], p = 0.04) is lower for RALF, but the total operating time (WMD = 24.05, 95% CI = [5.19, 42.92], p = 0.01) is longer for RALF compared with those for CLF. Statistically, there was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to perioperative complication rate (OR = 0.67, 95% CI = [0.30, 1.48], p = 1.00) and length of hospital stay (WMD = 0.00, 95% CI = [-0.25, 0.26], p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic review of the literature indicates that RALF is a feasible and safe alternative to surgical treatment of GERD. However, since it lacks obvious advantages with respect to operating time, length of hospital stay and cost, RALF has limitations for its extensive application in clinics.