Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33409583›Full record

ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2021

Short-term outcome after robot-assisted hiatal hernia and anti-reflux surgery-is there a benefit for the patient?

Frank Benedix, Daniela Adolf, Steffi Peglow, Linda Marie Gstettenbauer, Roland Croner

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Robotic versus Laparoscopic Hiatal Hernia Repair in Elderly Patients.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
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.

Frank BenedixDepartment of Surgery, University Hospital Magdeburg, Leipziger Strasse 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany. frankbenedix@gmx.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5404-6616
Daniela AdolfStatConsult GmbH, Halberstädter Strasse 40a, 39112, Magdeburg, Germany.
Steffi PeglowDepartment of Surgery, University Hospital Magdeburg, Leipziger Strasse 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany.
Linda Marie GstettenbauerDepartment of Surgery, University Hospital Magdeburg, Leipziger Strasse 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany.
Roland CronerDepartment of Surgery, University Hospital Magdeburg, Leipziger Strasse 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe robotic system was introduced to overcome the technical limitations of conventional laparoscopy. For complex oncological operations, it appears to offer further advantages. With regard to hiatal hernia repair, its role has yet to be determined.

methodsAll consecutive patients who received elective laparoscopic or robot-assisted hiatal hernia repair at a single institution between January 2016 and July 2020 were retrospectively evaluated. We compared both techniques with particular focus on their short-term outcome. A propensity score-matched comparison considering clinical and surgical covariates was also performed between the two groups.

results140 patients were included, and 55 (39.3%) underwent a robot-assisted procedure. The baseline demographics and the frequency of previous abdominal operations were comparable for both groups. The size of the hiatal hernia did not differ significantly between the groups (p = 0.06). The mean operative time was significantly longer for the robot-assisted procedure (149 vs. 125 min; p < 0.01) but decreased markedly during the study period. By contrast, no significant differences were observed in terms of conversion rate (p = 1.0) and blood loss (p = 0.25). Likewise, the postoperative morbidity was comparable for both groups (10.9 vs. 12.9; p = 0.79). The hospital length of stay was not significantly different between the laparoscopic and robotic group (4.0 vs. 3.6 days; p = 0.2). After propensity score-matching, 48 patients were identified for each group. Except for the operative time, no other significant differences were found. Thus, the results of the univariate analysis were confirmed.

conclusionOur initial results failed to demonstrate a clear advantage of the robotic technique in patients with refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease and/or symptomatic hiatal hernias.

Indexed as

Gastroesophageal RefluxHernia, HiatalLaparoscopyRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresFundoplicationHerniorrhaphyHumansRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeGastroesophageal refluxHiatal herniaLaparoscopyPerioperative outcomeRobotic 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.