ArticleKansas journal of medicine2022
Comparing Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted versus Conventional Laparoscopic Hiatal Hernia Repair.
Article in Kansas journal of medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Safety of robotic-assisted surgery in redo fundoplication: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for hiatal hernia repair: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Robotic versus Laparoscopic Hiatal Hernia Repair in Elderly Patients.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsPooled it
- A retrospective comparative study comparing laparoscopic and robotic hiatal hernia repair: surgical outcomes, recurrence rate, and postoperative morbidity.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Short term safety and efficacy of robot-assisted laparoscopic redo hiatal hernia repair without mesh: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- A standardized robot-assisted technique for giant paraesophageal hernia repair: the relationship between surgical details and low recurrence rate in long-term follow-up.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Observational
- Voluminous hiatal hernias - the role of robotic surgery.Innovative surgical sciences · 2025Review
- Dynamics of hiatal hernia recurrence: how important is a composite crural repair?Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024Review
- Comparative analysis of robotic and laparoscopic techniques in hiatal hernia and crural repair: a review of current evidence and outcomes.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024Review
- Evaluation of robot-assisted laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair in children.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2023Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for anti-reflux and hiatal hernia surgery is becoming increasingly prevalent. The purpose of this study was to compare hospital length of stay and outcomes of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of 58 patients who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic (n = 16, 27.6%) or conventional laparoscopic (n = 42, 72.4%) hiatal hernia repair. Results: Patient characteristics and comorbidities were similar between groups. The robotic-assisted group had a significantly higher use of fundoplication (81.3% vs. 38.1%; p = 0.007). Complications observed between the robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic groups were pneumothorax (6.3% vs. 11.9%; p = 1.000), infection (0% vs. 4.8%; p = 1.000), perforation (0% vs. 2.4%; p = 1.000), bleeding (6.3% vs. 2.4%; p = 0.479), ICU admission (31.3% vs. 11.9%; p = 0.119), and mechanical ventilation (18.8% vs. 2.4%; p = 0.60). There were no reported complications of dysphagia, deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolus, myocardial infarction, or death in either group. Hospital length of stay was similar for robotic versus conventional patients (3.0 vs. 2.5 days; p = 0.301). Conclusions: Robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic hiatal hernia were compared, which demonstrated similar post-operative complication rates and hospital length of stay. The results showed robotic-assisted or conventional laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair can be performed with similar outcomes.
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.