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

Antireflux surgeries and hiatal repair: keys to success

INTRODUCTION

Gastroesophageal reflux is common, and when medical therapy is ineffective, alternative treatments should be considered. Nissen fundoplication controls reflux but can be followed by side effects such as dysphagia and flatulence. To improve outcomes, modifications have been advocated.

AREAS COVERED

Modifications to Nissen fundoplication and newer procedures for gastroesophageal reflux aim to improve overall outcome. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and long-term outcomes from large cohorts are prioritized to consider the optimal procedure for reflux and hiatus hernia.

EXPERT OPINION

Fundoplication is an effective treatment for gastroesophageal reflux, with success rates of >80% reported at 18-20-year follow-up. RCTs confirm that Nissen fundoplication delivers better reflux control than medication. However, some patients are troubled by side effects. Anterior and posterior partial fundoplication variants have been proposed as procedures that offer equally good reflux control, but fewer side effects, and RCTs have confirmed this with follow-up to 20 years. Which partial fundoplication is better is debated. Alternative laparoscopic or endoscopic approaches require expensive implants or equipment and deliver less reliable reflux control than partial fundoplication. Currently, level I evidence confirms that laparoscopic partial fundoplication delivers the optimal outcome in fit patients with reflux that is not well controlled by medication.

Determining the learning curve of minimally invasive antireflux surgery: systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression

The rapid uptake of minimally invasive antireflux surgery has led to interest in learning curves for this procedure. This study ascertains the learning curve in laparoscopic and robotic-assisted antireflux surgery. A systematic review of the literature pertaining to learning curves in minimally invasive fundoplication with or without hiatal hernia repair was performed using PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. A meta-regression analysis was undertaken to identify the number of cases to achieve surgical proficiency, and a meta-analysis was performed to compare outcomes between cases that were undertaken during a surgeon's learning phase and experienced phase. Twenty-five studies met the eligibility criteria. A meta-regression analysis was performed to quantitatively investigate the trend of number of cases required to achieve surgical proficiency from 1996 to present day. Using a mixed-effects negative binomial regression model, the predicted learning curve for laparoscopic and robotic-assisted antireflux surgery was found to be 24.7 and 31.1 cases, respectively. The meta-analysis determined that surgeons in their learning phase may experience a moderately increased rate of conversion to open procedure (odds ratio [OR] 2.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28, 4.64), as well as a slightly increased rate of intraoperative complications (OR 1.60; 95% CI 1.08, 2.38), postoperative complications (OR 1.98; 95% CI 1.36, 2.87), and needing reintervention (OR 1.64; 95% CI 1.16, 2.34). This study provides an insight into the expected caseload to be competent in performing antireflux surgery. The discrepancy between outcomes during and after the learning curve for antireflux surgery suggests a need for close proctorship for learning surgeons.

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.

Robots in Healthcare: a Scoping Review

Purpose of Review

Robots are increasingly being adopted in healthcare to carry out various tasks that enhance patient care. This scoping review aims to establish the types of robots being used in healthcare and identify where they are deployed.

Recent Findings

Technological advancements have enabled robots to conduct increasingly varied and complex roles in healthcare. For instance, precision tasks such as improving dexterity following stroke or assisting with percutaneous coronary intervention.

Summary

This review found that robots have played 10 main roles across a variety of clinical environments. The two predominant roles were surgical and rehabilitation and mobility. Although robots were mainly studied in the surgical theatre and rehabilitation unit, other settings ranged from the hospital ward to inpatient pharmacy. Healthcare needs are constantly evolving, as demonstrated by COVID-19, and robots may assist in adapting to these changes. The future will involve increased telepresence and infrastructure systems will have to improve to allow for this.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43154-022-00095-4.

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.

Robotic Foregut Surgery in the Veterans Health Administration: Increasing Prevalence, Decreasing Operative Time, and Improving Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Historically, robotic surgery incurs longer operative times, higher costs, and nonsuperior outcomes compared with laparoscopic surgery. However, in areas of limited visibility and decreased accessibility such as the gastroesophageal junction, robotic platforms may improve visualization and facilitate dissection. This study compares 30-day outcomes between robotic-assisted foregut surgery (RAF) and laparoscopic-assisted foregut surgery in the Veterans Health Administration.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective review of the Veterans Affairs Quality Improvement Program database. Patients undergoing laparoscopic-assisted foregut surgery and RAF were identified using CPT codes 43280, 43281, 43282, and robotic modifier S2900. Multivariable logistic regression and multivariable generalized linear models were used to analyze the independent association between surgical approach and outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

A total of 9,355 veterans underwent minimally invasive fundoplication from 2008 to 2019. RAF was used in 5,392 cases (57.6%): 1.63% of cases in 2008 to 83.41% of cases in 2019. After adjusting for confounding covariates, relative to laparoscopic-assisted foregut surgery, RAF was significantly associated with decreased adjusted odds of pulmonary complications (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.44, p < 0.001), acute renal failure (aOR 0.14, p = 0.046), venous thromboembolism (aOR 0.44, p = 0.009) and increased odds of infectious complications (aOR 1.60, p = 0.017). RAF was associated with an adjusted mean ± SD of 29 ± 2-minute shorter operative time (332 minutes vs 361 minutes; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Veterans undergoing RAF ascertained shorter operative times and reduced complications vs laparoscopy. As surgeons use the robotic platform, clinical outcomes and operative times continue to improve, particularly in operations where extra articulation in confined spaces is required.

Short-Term Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Paraesophageal Hiatal Hernia Repair

Many patients with hiatal hernias (HH) are asymptomatic; however, symptoms may include heartburn, regurgitation, dysphagia, nausea, or vague epigastric pain depending on the hernia type and severity. The ideal technique and timing of repair remains controversial. This report describes short-term outcomes and readmissions of patients undergoing HH repair at our institution. All patients who underwent HH repair from January 2012 through April 2017 were reviewed. Patients undergoing concomitant bariatric surgery were excluded. 239 patients were identified and 128 were included. Eighty-eight were female (69%) and 40 were male (31%) with a mean age of 59 years (range 20–91 years) and a mean BMI of 29.2 kg/m² (17–42). Worsening GERD was the most common presenting symptom in 79 (61.7%) patients. Eighty-four laparoscopic cases (65.6%) and 44 robotic assisted (34.4%) procedures were performed. Mesh was used in 59 operations (3 polytetrafluoroethylene; 56 biologic). All hiatal hernia types (I-IV) were collected. Majority were initial operations (89%). Techniques included: Toupet fundoplication in 68 cases (63.0%), Nissen fundoplication in 36 (33.3%), Dor fundoplication in 4 (3.7%), concomitant Collis gastroplasty in 4 (3.1%), and primary suture repair in 20 (15.6%). Outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic procedures were compared. Length of stay was reported as median and interquartile range for laparoscopic and robotic: 1.0 day (1.0–3.0) and 2.0 days (1.0–2.5); p = 0.483. Thirty-day readmission occurred in 9 patients, 7 (8.3%) laparoscopic and 2 (4.6%) robotic; p = 0.718. Two 30-day reoperations occurred, both laparoscopic; p = 0.545. Total of 16 complications occurred; 18.6% had a complication with the use of mesh compared to 8.7% without the use of mesh, p = 0.063. There were no conversion to open modality and no mortalities were reported. Hiatal hernia repair can be performed safely with a low incidence of complications.

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.

Laparoendoscopic Single-Site (LESS) versus Robotic “Redo” Hiatal Hernia Repair with Fundoplication: Which Approach is Better?

Only a small percentage of patients fail laparoscopic fundoplications undertaken for gastroesophageal reflux disease. But because many laparoscopic fundoplications have been undertaken, surgeons frequently encounter patients in need of “redo” operations. This study was undertaken to evaluate the robotic approach versus laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) approach for redo fundoplications. With an Institutional Review Board approval, 64 patients undergoing LESS (n = 32) or robotic (n = 32) redo antireflux operations were prospectively followed up. Data are presented as median (mean + SD). For LESS versus robotic redo operations, the operative duration was 145 (143 ± 33.5) versus 196 (208 ± 76.7) minutes ( P < 0.01), estimated blood loss was 50 (80 ± 92.1) versus 20 (43 ± 57.1) mL ( P = 0.07), and length of stay was 1 (3 ± 5.4) versus 1 (2 ± 1.9) day ( P = 0.57); 1 LESS operation was converted to “open.” Operative duration was longer for men ( P = 0.01). Postoperative complications were not more frequent after Nissen (n = 36) or Toupet (n = 28) fundoplication, regardless of the approach. When matched by BMI, operative duration was prolonged by a large Type I to IV hiatal hernia ( P = 0.01). Symptoms improved dramatically and were similar with both approaches, and patient satisfaction was high. Robotic redo antireflux operations take longer than LESS operations. LESS and robotic redo antireflux operations are both safe and offer significant and similar amelioration of symptoms after failed fundoplications.