SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2025
Safety and efficacy of robotic versus laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes.
Synthesis in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Postoperative quality of life after minimally invasive repair of giant hiatal hernias.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Article
- Reflections on surgery for hiatal hernia.Updates in surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic surgery (RS) has emerged as a promising alternative to laparoscopic surgery (LS) for the repair of hiatal hernias (HH), a condition that affects up to 60% of individuals over the age of 50. However, the superiority of RS over LS remains debatable in real-world applications, underscoring the necessity for a comprehensive and up-to-date comparison.
methodsHerein, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare RS and LS for HH repair, focusing on perioperative outcomes including short-term results, complication rates, and hospital stay. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across ScienceDirect, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science. Randomized and non-randomized trials, as well as retrospective and prospective cohort studies, comparing RS and LS in HH repair were included. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.
resultsThirteen studies involving 205,354 participants were included in the final analysis. No statistically significant differences were observed regarding mortality, conversion rate, hernia recurrence, hospital stay, readmission rate, or adverse events. However, LS May offer advantages in terms of shorter operative time, with a 15.3-minute difference in favor of LS, and lower supply costs.
conclusionsOverall, RS was comparable to LS in terms of perioperative clinical outcomes. Both approaches yielded similar results regarding mortality, complication rate, hospital stay, and readmission rates. RS was inferior in terms of operative time and cost. Future multicenter studies should include capital costs and standardized protocols to enable more accurate comparisons.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41107615What 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.