ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
30-day outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic Heller myotomy.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of recovery-centered outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMinimally invasive Heller myotomy has become the standard of care to treat patients with esophageal achalasia with improved morbidity and mortality compared to its open counterpart; however few studies have prospectively compared Robotic Heller myotomy (RAHM) to laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM).
methodsThe 2022 ACS-NSQIP database was queried to identify adults with achalasia who underwent RAHM versus LHM. Patients in the RAHM group were matched using Coarsened Exact Matching with the LHM group on their preoperative characteristics. Chi-square and Fisher exact tests were used for categorical analysis, and Student's t-test was used for continuous data analysis. 30-day outcomes, including mortality, morbidity, operative time, length of hospital stay along with reoperation and readmission rates were compared between the two groups in both aggregate and matched cohorts.
resultsIn the aggregate cohort, patients in the RAHM were older (55.21 ± 16.28 vs. 49.71 ± 12.19, p = 0.007) and had a higher percentage of male patients (66.3% vs.49.5%, p = 0.011), but otherwise there were no statistically significant differences in co-morbidities between the two groups. In the matched cohort, there were no statistically significant differences in the preoperative characteristics between the two groups. There were no mortalities in the cohorts. In the aggregate cohort, RAHM was associated with higher morbidity (7.5% vs. 1.5%, p = 0.009) and longer operative times (166.65 ± 67.33 vs. 124.06 ± 52.61, p < 0.001). Similar findings were confirmed in the matched cohort. Overall surgical site infection (SSI), reintubation, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and myocardial infarction (MI) were also higher in the RAHM group, but it did not reach statistical significance. There was no difference in readmission and reoperation rates, or length of stay between the two groups.
conclusionsIn this study, RAHM had similar short-term outcomes compared to LHM, but may be associated with higher overall morbidity and longer operative times.
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.