ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2012
Robotic-assisted Heller myotomy versus laparoscopic Heller myotomy for the treatment of esophageal achalasia: a case-control study.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic versus laparoscopic heller myotomy for esophageal achalasia: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Pooled it
- The impact of robotic surgery on the treatment of benign esophageal and gastric disease: early experience of a specialized unit.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Single-center experience of transitioning from video-assisted laparoscopic to robotic Heller myotomy with Dor fundoplication for esophageal motility disorders.BMC surgery · 2023Observational
- Robot-Assisted Heller Myotomy Versus Laparoscopic Heller Myotomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2023Review
- Minimally invasive thoracic surgery: robot-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2023Review
- Clinical and functional outcome following robotic Heller-myotomy with partial fundoplication in patients with achalasia.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
- Robotic Surgery for the Treatment of Achalasia Cardia: Surgical Technique, Initial Experiences and Literature Review.Cureus · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimally invasive surgery has become the gold standard for the treatment of achalasia. The incorporation of robotic technology can improve many limitations of laparoscopic surgery, through, for example, the availability of three-dimensional vision, increasing the degrees of movement, avoiding the fulcrum effect and optimizing ergonomics. The aim of this study was to compare robotic-assisted laparoscopic Heller myotomy (RAHM) with laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) in terms of efficacy and safety. Thirty-one patients with diagnosis of achalasia confirmed by esophagogram and manometry were included. Dysphagia and weight loss were the main complaints in both groups. 18 patients were treated with LHM and 13 patients with RAHM. There was no difference in mean operative time (76 ± 13 vs. 79 ± 20 min; P = 0.73). Intraoperative complications were less frequent in the robotic-assisted procedures (5.5% vs. 0%); however, this was a non-significant difference. 94.5-100% of patients had relief of their symptoms. We conclude that RAHM is a safe and effective procedure. The operative time is no longer than in LHM, but it is necessary to evaluate the technique in randomized clinical trials to determine its advantages in terms of intraoperative complications.
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.