Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39123086›Full record

ReviewHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2024

Comparative analysis of robotic and laparoscopic techniques in hiatal hernia and crural repair: a review of current evidence and outcomes.

I Karikis, N Pachos, E Mela, K Saliaris, E Kitsou, D Linardoutsos, S Triantafyllou, D Theodorou

Abstract readReviewComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

8 authors.

I KarikisFirst Propedeutic Department of Surgery, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Hippocration General Hospital, Athens, Greece. gianniskarikis99@gmail.com.ORCID 0009-0004-1055-2834
N PachosFirst Propedeutic Department of Surgery, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Hippocration General Hospital, Athens, Greece.
E MelaFirst Propedeutic Department of Surgery, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Hippocration General Hospital, Athens, Greece.
K SaliarisFirst Propedeutic Department of Surgery, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Hippocration General Hospital, Athens, Greece.
E KitsouFirst Propedeutic Department of Surgery, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Hippocration General Hospital, Athens, Greece.
D LinardoutsosFirst Propedeutic Department of Surgery, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Hippocration General Hospital, Athens, Greece.
S TriantafyllouFirst Propedeutic Department of Surgery, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Hippocration General Hospital, Athens, Greece.
D TheodorouFirst Propedeutic Department of Surgery, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Hippocration General Hospital, Athens, Greece.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this narrative review is to evaluate the implementation of robotic surgery in hiatal hernia and crural repair, based on the existing literature and to compare this approach to other established techniques.

methodsWe performed a non- systematic literature search of PubMed and MEDLINE on February 25, 2024 for papers published to date focusing on the surgical repair of hiatal hernias using the robotic platform. After eliminating publications based on eligibility criteria, 13 studies were selected for analysis.

resultsRobotic surgery is increasingly utilized in hiatal hernia repair due to its enhanced ergonomics and superior visualization capabilities. Operative times vary, with some studies indicating longer durations for robotic surgery (e.g., Giovannetti et al. demonstrated median operative time of 196 min for robotic compared to 145 min for laparoscopic) while others report shorter times (e.g., Lang F et al. demonstrated 88 min for robotic versus 102 min for laparoscopic). Recurrence rates between robotic and laparoscopic repairs are comparable, with reported recurrence rates of 1.8% for robotic and 1.2% for laparoscopic approaches by Benedix et al. Robotic surgery offers potential advantages, including reduced intraoperative blood loss (e.g., Giovannetti et al. mentioned median blood loss of 20 ml for robotic versus 50 ml for laparoscopic). The length of hospital stay and postoperative complication rates also vary, with some studies suggesting shorter stays and fewer complications for robotic surgery as surgeons become more proficient. Soliman et al. reported a statistically significant reduction in complication rates with robotic surgery (6.3% versus 19.2%).

conclusionsRobotic surgery presents promising results regarding the length of hospital stay, conversion rate to open surgery and postoperative complication rates when compared to laparoscopy based on the existing literature. Despite the lack of striking differences, robotic hiatal hernia repair is a valid and evolving approach.

Indexed as

Hernia, HiatalHerniorrhaphyLaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansLength of StayOperative TimeRecurrenceHiatal closureHiatal herniaLaparoscopic surgeryRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID39123086

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.