Similar hospital profits with robotic-assisted paraesophageal hiatal hernia repair, despite higher or supply costs

Hiatal Hernia Repair: A Century Between Soresi and da Vinci

A minimally invasive approach is the most common technique for hiatal hernia repair. The robotic platform offers a unique advantage that addresses the limitations of a laparoscopic repair. The steps of a robotic hiatal hernia repair include reduction of hernia contents, dissection of hernia sac, circumferential dissection of esophagus with 2.5 to 3 cm of intraabdominal esophagus, crural closure, and partial or complete fundoplication. The robotic hiatal hernia repair has comparable perioperative outcomes to the laparoscopic approach. This article discusses current controversies, limitations, and new technologies.

Adoption of the Robotic Platform across Thoracic Surgeries

With the paradigm shift in minimally invasive surgery from the video-assisted thoracoscopic platform to the robotic platform, thoracic surgeons are applying the new technology through various commonly practiced thoracic surgeries, striving to improve patient outcomes and reduce morbidity and mortality. This review will discuss the updates in lung resections, lung transplantation, mediastinal surgeries with a focus on thymic resection, rib resection, tracheal resection, tracheobronchoplasty, diaphragm plication, esophagectomy, and paraesophageal hernia repair. The transition from open surgery to video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) to now robotic video-assisted thoracic surgery (RVATS) allows complex surgeries to be completed through smaller and smaller incisions with better visualization through high-definition images and finer mobilization, accomplishing what might be unresectable before, permitting shorter hospital stay, minimizing healing time, and encompassing broader surgical candidacy. Moreover, better patient outcomes are not only achieved through what the lead surgeon could carry out during surgeries but also through the training of the next generation via accessible live video feedback and recordings. Though larger volume randomized controlled studies are pending to compare the outcomes of VATS to RVATS surgeries, published studies show non-inferiority data from RVATS performances. With progressive enhancement, such as overcoming the lack of haptic feedback, and future incorporation of artificial intelligence (AI), the robotic platform will likely be a cost-effective route once surgeons overcome the initial learning curve.

Robotic surgery versus Laparoscopic surgery for anti-reflux and hiatal hernia surgery: a short-term outcomes and cost systematic literature review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The objective of this study is to compare the operative time, intraoperative complications, length of stay, readmission rates, overall complications, mortality, and cost associated with Robotic Surgery (RS) and Laparascopic Surgery (LS) in anti-reflux and hiatal hernia surgery.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science and Scopus databases. Studies comparing short-term outcomes and cost between RS and LS in patients with anti-reflux and hiatal hernia were included. Data on operative time, complications, length of stay, readmission rates, overall complications, mortality, and cost were extracted. Quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the MINORS scale.

RESULTS

Fourteen retrospective observational studies involving a total of 555,368 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed no statistically significant difference in operative time, intraoperative complications, length of stay, readmission rates, overall complications, and mortality between RS and LS. However, LS was associated with lower costs compared to RS.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that RS has non-inferior short-term outcomes in anti-reflux and hiatal hernia surgery, compared to LS. LS is more cost-effective, but RS offers potential benefits such as improved visualization and enhanced surgical techniques. Further research, including randomized controlled trials and long-term outcome studies, is needed to validate and refine these findings.

Evaluation of robot-assisted laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair in children

Laparoscopic approach is the gold standard for repairing hiatal hernia (HH). Robotic technology is now widely accepted, but it is rarely used in children with HH. Our aim was to evaluate the clinical effect of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) in the treatment of HH in children. A retrospective study was carried out in patients undergoing elective robot-assisted laparoscopic or conventional laparoscopic HH repair at a tertiary academic hospital from January 2020 to December 2022, and patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in this study. We compared the characteristics and clinical results of patients to understand the effects of the two surgical methods. Forty-six patients (CLS, group 1, n = 25; RALS, group 2, n = 21) met the inclusion criteria. All operations were performed by one experienced pediatric surgeon. In this study, no significant differences were found in terms of gender, age, weight, size of HH, total operation times, the effective operation time (excluding setup time) and complications between group 1 and group 2. (P = 0.979, P = 0.438, P = 0.265, P = 0.800, P = 0.122, P = 0.427 and P = 0.478, respectively). However, the intraoperative bleeding, the intensive care unit (ICU) admission, postoperative hospital length of stay (LOS) and postoperative fasting time were significantly less for RALS (P = 0.016, P = 0.040, P = 0.035 and P = 0.025, respectively). Meanwhile, the overall charges were significantly higher in group 2 (P < 0.01). Despite higher charges for robotic-assisted HH repair, it is a safe and reliable alternative to CLS and was associated with better outcomes in children.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

The robotic approach offers improved visualization and maneuverability for surgeons. This systematic review aims to compare the outcomes of robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic approaches for paraesophageal hernia repair, specifically examining postoperative complications, operative time, hospital stay, and recurrence.

Methods

A systematic review including thorough research through PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane, was performed and only comparative studies were included. Studies concerning other types of hiatal hernias or children were excluded. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare overall postoperative complications, hospital stay, and operation time.

Results

Ten comparative studies, with 186,259 participants in total, were included in the meta-analysis, but unfortunately, not all of them reported all the outcomes under question. It appeared that there is no statistically significant difference between the conventional laparoscopic and the robotic-assisted approach, regarding the overall postoperative complication rate (odds ratio [OR], 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-1.11), the mean operation time (t = 1.41; 95% CI, -0.15-0.52; p = 0.22), and the hospital length of stay (t = -1.54; degree of freedom = 8; 95% CI, -0.53-0.11; p = 0.16). Only two studies reported evidence concerning the recurrence rates.

Conclusion

Overall, the robotic-assisted method did not demonstrate superiority over conventional laparoscopic paraesophageal hiatal hernia repair in terms of postoperative complications, operation time, or hospital stay. However, some studies focused on cost and patient characteristics of each group. Further comparative and randomized control studies with longer follow-up periods are needed for more accurate conclusions on short- and long-term outcomes.

Economic evaluation of robotic and laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair

BACKGROUND

Robotic approach in paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair may improve outcomes over laparoscopic approach, though at additional cost. This study aimed to compare cost-effectiveness of robotic and laparoscopic PEH repair.

METHODS

A decision tree was created analyzing cost-effectiveness of robotic and laparoscopic PEH repair. Costs were obtained from 2021 Medicare data and were accumulated within 60 months after surgery. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Branch-point probabilities and costs of robotic surgery consumables were obtained from published literature. The primary outcome of interest was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. A secondary analysis including attributable capital and maintenance costs of robotic surgery was conducted as well.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic repair yielded 3.660 QALYs at $35,843.82. Robotic repair yielded 3.661 QALYs at $36,342.57, with an ICER of $779,488.62/QALY. Robotic repair was favored when rates of open conversion and symptom recurrence were low, or with reduced cost of robotic instruments. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis favored laparoscopic repair in 100% of simulations. When accounting for costs of robotic technology, robotic approach was preferred only in unrealistic clinical scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic repair is likely more cost-effective for most institutions, though results were relatively similar. With experienced surgeons who surpass the initial learning curve, robotic surgery may improve outcomes enough to be cost-effective, but only when excluding capital and maintenance fees.