Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32556775›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021

Favorable peri-operative outcomes observed in paraesophageal hernia repair with robotic approach.

William D Gerull, Daniel Cho, Saeed Arefanian, Bradley S Kushner, Michael M Awad

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Robotic versus Laparoscopic Hiatal Hernia Repair in Elderly Patients.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Pooled it
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Robotic Surgical Repair of a Parahiatal Hernia: A Case Report.The American journal of case reports · 2026
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

5 authors.

William D GerullSection of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8109, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA. wgerull@wustl.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7722-6046
Daniel ChoDartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA.
Saeed ArefanianDepartment of Surgery, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA.
Bradley S KushnerSection of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8109, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
Michael M AwadSection of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8109, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe robotic surgical approach offers enhanced visualization, dexterity and reach, which may facilitate the more technically demanding portions of paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair such as hiatal reconstruction and mediastinal dissection. We sought to compare the peri-operative clinical outcomes of the laparoscopic vs. robotic approach to PEH repair.

methodsA prospective, IRB-approved database was maintained for all robotic PEH repairs performed by a single surgeon at a tertiary academic hospital from 2009 to 2019. A retrospective review of laparoscopic PEH over this same time period was used as a comparison group. Outcome measures included: operative time, conversion to open, need for an esophageal lengthening procedure, operative equipment costs and length of stay (LOS).

results1854 patients underwent PEH repair during this time period (830 robotic; 1024 laparoscopic). Demographics of both groups were similar, including BMI and PEH type, although a higher proportion of robotic cases were re-operative PEH repairs (32.5% vs 24.0%; p < 0.001). Patients who underwent a robotic PEH had a significant reduction in esophageal lengthening procedures performed (0.1% vs. 11.0%; p < 0.001), conversion to open (0% vs. 7.0%; p < 0.001), and LOS (1.8 days vs. 3.1 days; p < 0.001). Intra-operative equipment costs were similar.

conclusionsIn one of the largest robotic PEH case series reported to date, there were significant improvements in peri-operative outcomes in patients undergoing a robotic-assisted approach. Although a greater number of patients in the robotic group were redo PEH repairs, when compared to the laparoscopic group, there were no conversions to open and significantly fewer esophageal lengthening procedures, both of which carry significant morbidity. The similar intra-operative costs were likely balanced by the higher costs associated with stapling equipment and conversions in the laparoscopic group. Our findings show that the robotic PEH repair is safe and can result in improved peri-operative outcomes.

Indexed as

Hernia, HiatalLaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresHerniorrhaphyHumansProspective StudiesRecurrenceRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeParaesophageal hernia repairRobotic surgery

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.