Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26809755›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2016

Evaluation of conventional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic redo hiatal hernia and antireflux surgery: a cohort study.

Robert C Tolboom, Werner A Draaisma, Ivo A M J Broeders

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Robotic versus Laparoscopic Hiatal Hernia Repair in Elderly Patients.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Robert C TolboomDepartment of Surgery, Meander Medical Center, P.O. box 1502, 3800 BM, Amersfoort, The Netherlands. rc.tolboom@meandermc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3460-1934
Werner A DraaismaDepartment of Surgery, Meander Medical Center, P.O. box 1502, 3800 BM, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
Ivo A M J BroedersDepartment of Surgery, Meander Medical Center, P.O. box 1502, 3800 BM, Amersfoort, The Netherlands. iamj.broeders@meandermc.nl.
Meander Medisch Centrum · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Surgery for refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and hiatal hernia leads to recurrence or persisting dysphagia in a minority of patients. Redo antireflux surgery in GERD and hiatal hernia is known for higher morbidity and mortality. This study aims to evaluate conventional versus robot-assisted laparoscopic redo antireflux surgery, with the objective to detect possible advantages for the robot-assisted approach. A single institute cohort of 75 patients who underwent either conventional laparoscopic or robot-assisted laparoscopic redo surgery for recurrent GERD or severe dysphagia between 2008 and 2013 were included in the study. Baseline characteristics, symptoms, medical history, procedural data, hospital stay, complications and outcome were prospectively gathered. The main indications for redo surgery were dysphagia, pyrosis or a combination of both in combination with a proven anatomic abnormality. The mean time to redo surgery was 1.9 and 2.0 years after primary surgery for the conventional and robot-assisted groups, respectively. The number of conversions was lower in the robot-assisted group compared to conventional laparoscopy (1/45 vs. 5/30, p = 0.035) despite a higher proportion of patients with previous surgery by laparotomy (9/45 vs. 1/30, p = 0.038). Median hospital stay was reduced by 1 day (3 vs. 4, p = 0.042). There were no differences in mortality, complications or outcome. Robotic support, when available, can be regarded beneficial in redo surgery for GERD and hiatal hernia. Results of this observational study suggest technical feasibility for minimal-invasive robot-assisted redo surgery after open primary antireflux surgery, a reduced number of conversions and shorter hospital stay.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresFemaleFollow-Up StudiesFundoplicationGastroesophageal RefluxHernia, HiatalHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsReoperationTreatment FailureDa VinciFundoplicationGastroesophageal refluxRedo surgeryRobotic surgical procedures

Identifiers

PMID26809755
PMCPMC4766202
OpenAlexW2260277177

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.