SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2010
Whether robot-assisted laparoscopic fundoplication is better for gastroesophageal reflux disease in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and efficacy of robotic versus laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic review of robot-assisted anti-reflux surgery to examine reporting standards.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Robotic Nissen fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials.Surgery today · 2014Pooled it
- Ambulatory laparoscopic fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2011Pooled it
- A retrospective comparative study comparing laparoscopic and robotic hiatal hernia repair: surgical outcomes, recurrence rate, and postoperative morbidity.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Postoperative quality of life after minimally invasive repair of giant hiatal hernias.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic vs. robotic-assisted antireflux surgery: a matched cohort analysis of procedure costs and outcomes.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- A standardized robot-assisted technique for giant paraesophageal hernia repair: the relationship between surgical details and low recurrence rate in long-term follow-up.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Observational
- Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic antireflux surgery: a retrospective cohort analysis of perioperative and medium-term outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Robotic-assisted hiatal hernia repairs with and without magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA): short- and long-term patient-centered outcomes in a single academic center.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Opinion, uptake and current practice of robot-assisted upper gastrointestinal and oesophagogastric surgery in the UK: AUGIS national survey results.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2024Article
- Robotic-assisted treatment of paraesophageal hernias in the emergency setting: a retrospective study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Proctored adoption of robotic hiatus hernia surgery: outcomes and learning curves in a high-volume UK centre.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Paediatric robotic surgery: a narrative review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Review
- Robotic Surgery and Functional Esophageal Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- Cumulative summation analysis of learning curve for robotic-assisted hiatal hernia repairs.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Safety of robotic assisted laparoscopic recurrent paraesophageal hernia repair: insights from a large single institution experience.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Integrating Robotic Technology Into Resident Training: Challenges and Recommendations From the Front Lines.Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · 2019Article
- Evaluation of conventional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic redo hiatal hernia and antireflux surgery: a cohort study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2016Article
- Laparoscopic surgery: A qualified systematic review.World journal of methodology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough 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.
methodsTwo 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.
resultsOf 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).
conclusionsSystematic 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.