Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39160316›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024

Perioperative outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: a NSQIP analysis.

Chelsea Powell, Anthony DeGregorio, Katie Bews, Dennis Wigle, Elizabeth Habermann

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Robotic Surgical Repair of a Parahiatal Hernia: A Case Report.The American journal of case reports · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Chelsea PowellDepartment of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.ORCID 0009-0006-9468-3966
Anthony DeGregorioDepartment of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Katie BewsThe Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Dennis WigleDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Elizabeth HabermannThe Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. Habermann.Elizabeth@mayo.edu.

Funding

Mayo Clinic StARR ProgramR38HL150086 · NHLBI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI VESNA D GAROVIC, KARL A. NATH · 2020 to 2026
$2.5M
NHLBI NIH HHS R38 HL150086
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStudies comparing outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repairs have yielded conflicting results. We sought to analyze early postoperative complications between these approaches using a newly available NSQIP variable indicating robot use.

methodsWe queried the 2022 ACS NSQIP database for adult patients undergoing elective minimally invasive hiatal hernia repair. Chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare cohort characteristics. Logistic, linear, and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to compare perioperative outcomes between the laparoscopic and robotic groups.

resultsWe identified 4345 patients who underwent repair using a laparoscopic (2778 patients; 63.9%) or robotic (1567 patients; 36.1%) approach. Most (73.1%) were female, and the median age was 65 (IQR 55, 73). Patients who underwent robotic repair were younger (median age 64 vs 66), had a slightly higher body mass index (BMI; median 30.2 vs 29.9), and were more likely to have hypertension (53.0% vs 48.5%), all p < 0.01. On unadjusted analysis the robotic approach was associated with decreased 30-day mortality (0.0% vs 0.4%, p < 0.01). After adjusting for age, gender, race, BMI, and hypertension, the robotic approach was not associated with increased major complications (5.6% vs 5.1%, AOR 1.13, 95% CI 0.86, 1.49), minor complications (0.9% vs 1.5%, AOR 1.20, 95% CI 0.74, 1.93), or unplanned readmission (6.5% vs 5.5%, AHR 1.17, 95% CI 0.89, 1.54), all p ≥ 0.26. After adjusting for age and hypertension, the robotic cohort had an increased risk of myocardial infarction (AOR 2.53, 95% CI 1.01, 6.33, p = 0.048) and pulmonary embolism (AOR 2.76, 95% CI 1.17, 6.49, p = 0.02), although none resulted in 30-day mortality.

conclusionsRobotic and laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repairs had similar overall complication and readmission rates. The robotic cohort had an increased risk of myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolism but no 30-day mortality. Current data support the use of both robotic and laparoscopic approaches for paraesophageal hernia repair.

Indexed as

Hernia, HiatalHerniorrhaphyLaparoscopyPostoperative ComplicationsRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient ReadmissionRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeHiatal herniaNSQIPOutcomesParaesophageal herniaRobotic

Identifiers

PMID39160316
PMCPMC13625184

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.