ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021
Minimally invasive approach to hiatal hernia repair is superior to open, even in the emergent setting: a large national database analysis.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 10 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, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic esophageal hiatal hernia and anti-reflux surgery: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Pooled it
- 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
- Robotic-assisted surgery for acute abdominal emergencies: a systematic review of 1142 cases.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluating surgical outcomes of hiatal hernia repair techniques with and without fundoplication: a network meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- Safety and feasibility of robotic surgery in acute care setting: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic surgery versus Laparoscopic surgery for anti-reflux and hiatal hernia surgery: a short-term outcomes and cost systematic literature review and meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for hiatal hernia repair: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Robotic operations in urgent general surgery: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Robotic surgery in emergency setting: 2021 WSES position paper.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2022Pooled it
- Robotic versus Laparoscopic Hiatal Hernia Repair in Elderly Patients.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsPooled it
- Robotic Surgery in Acute Care: A Systematic Review of Its Role in Visceral Trauma and Emergency General Surgery.Cureus · 2026Review
- Article
- Voluminous hiatal hernias - the role of robotic surgery.Innovative surgical sciences · 2025Review
- Retrospective cost analysis of robotic and laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery and paraesophageal hernia repair.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Current Trends in the Management of Hiatal Hernia: A Literature Review of 10 Years of Data.Cureus · 2024Review
- Perioperative outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: a NSQIP analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Emergency robotic surgery: the experience of a single center and review of the literature.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2024Review
- Comparison of Medical Research Abstracts Written by Surgical Trainees and Senior Surgeons or Generated by Large Language Models.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Evaluation of robot-assisted laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair in children.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- BRAZILIAN HERNIA AND ABDOMINAL WALL SOCIETY STATEMENT ON LARGE HIATAL HERNIAS MANAGEMENT.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2024Article
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
backgroundWe aimed to examine the outcomes and utilization of different hiatal hernia repair (HHR) approaches in elective and emergent/urgent settings.
methodsVizient 2015-2017 database was queried for adult patients who underwent HHR. Patients were grouped into open (OHHR), laparoscopic (LHHR), or robotic-assisted (RHHR), and further stratified by elective or urgent status and severity of illness at admission. Surgical outcomes and costs were compared across all groups. Statistical analysis were done using SPSS v.25.0.
results9171 adults were included (OHHR N = 1534;LHHR N = 6796;RHHR N = 841). LHHR was the most utilized approach (74.1%), followed by OHRR (16.7%) and RHHR (9.2%). OHHR was employed three times as frequently in U settings, compared to elective. Overall, OHHR had longer mean length of stay (LOS; 9.41 vs. < 4 days) and higher postoperative complication rates (8.8% vs < 3.8%), mortality (2.7% vs < 0.5%) and mean direct cost ($27,842 vs < $10,407), when compared to both LHHR and RHHR, all p < 0.05. Analysis of mild to severely ill elective cases demonstrated LHHR and RHHR to be better than OHHR regarding complications (p < 0.05), cost (p < 0.001) and LOS (p < 0.013); there were insufficient extremely ill elective patients for meaningful analysis. In the urgent setting, minimally invasive approaches predominate, overtaken by OHHR only for the extremely ill. Despite the urgent setting, for mild-moderately ill patients, OHHR was statistically inferior to both LHHR and RHHR for LOS (p = 0.002, p < 0.0001) and cost (p = 0.0133, p < 0.001). In severe-extremely ill patients, despite being more utilized, OHHR was not superior to LHHR; in fact, complication, cost, and mortality trends (all p > 0.05) favored LHHR.
conclusionOur analysis demonstrated LHHR to currently be the most employed approach overall. LHHR and RHHR were associated with lower cost, decreased LOS, complications, and mortality compared to OHHR, in all but the sickest of patients. Patients should be offered minimally invasive HHR, even in urgent/emergent settings, if technically feasible.
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.