ReviewCureus2025
The Implementation of Robotics in the Setting of Hiatal Hernia Repair: A Scoping Review on Current Evidence.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveFor many years, laparoscopy has been recognized as the standard approach for treating hiatal hernia (HH). Nevertheless, it continues to face significant recurrence rates and specific technical challenges. With the swift advancement of technology and the gradual adoption of robotic systems in clinical practice, robotic HH repair has generated interest due to its potential advantages, including three-dimensional visualization, improved dexterity, and better ergonomics. This scoping review seeks to assess the safety, feasibility, and effectiveness of robotic HH repair. MATERIAL AND
methodsA thorough literature search was performed in the PubMed and Scopus databases between August 13 and October 1, 2025, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) criteria and utilizing the keywords "Robotic AND Hiatal Hernia AND Repair." The focus was on studies published from 2015 onwards. In total, 31 studies are included in this review.
resultsEvidence shows that robotic HH repair exhibits safety and efficacy levels comparable to those of the laparoscopic method across existing studies. Procedure duration varied depending on the surgeon's experience with robotic tools, while the length of stay (LOS) at the hospital was often comparable to or occasionally shorter in robotic cases. Both approaches showed similar rates of postoperative complications and recurrences. Multiple studies indicated that robotic techniques resulted in lower blood loss and fewer transfusions, with one investigation highlighting reduced recovery times associated with robotic repair, especially for overweight and obese patients. However, robotic procedures consistently incurred higher costs. Notably, one study showed improved operative efficiency after seven to 15 surgeries as part of the learning curve.
conclusionsAvailable literature indicates that robotic HH repair serves as a safe and practical alternative to laparoscopy, offering enhanced visualization and accuracy with similar outcomes. While there is encouraging data, the elevated costs and the scarcity of long-term randomized studies indicate a need for further investigation to identify the most effective surgical strategy.
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.