ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Laparoscopic vs. robotic-assisted antireflux surgery: a matched cohort analysis of procedure costs and outcomes.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Robot-Assisted Antireflux Surgery in Gastro-Oesophageal Reflux Disease and Hiatal Hernia: Beyond Platform Comparison Towards Selective Clinical Value.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of robotic surgery has expanded rapidly; however, its cost-effectiveness in foregut surgery remains unclear. We aimed to compare early postoperative outcomes and procedure-related costs between robotic (R-) and laparoscopic (L-) antireflux surgery (ARS).
methodsThis retrospective cohort and cost-effectiveness study was conducted using a prospectively maintained database of adults who underwent minimally invasive ARS by a single experienced esophageal surgeon. All primary elective R-ARS cases (September 2016-December 2024) were identified, and perioperative outcomes and procedure costs (US$) were compared to a 1:1 propensity-score matched L-ARS cohort. Moreover, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for predefined outcomes.
resultsIn total, 138 patients (69 R-ARS, 69 L-ARS) were included. R-ARS was associated with a longer median operating room utilization time (169 vs 128 min., p < 0.001) and length-of-stay (2 vs. 1 days, p = 0.045) and slightly more intraoperative complications (5.8 vs. 1.4%, p = 0.362). Early complications (10.1% both), ICU admissions (R-ARS, 2.9% vs. L-ARS, 1.4%, p > 0.999), and 90-day readmissions (R-ARS, 6.1% vs. L-ARS, 3.3%, p = 0.749) were similar between the groups. The median all-inclusive cost was higher with R-ARS ($15,676.1 vs. $7694.9, p < 0.001). Although the incidence of patient-reported postoperative dysphagia was similar after R-ARS or L-ARS (26.1 vs. 30.4%, p = 0.705), resulting endoscopic interventions were more frequent after R-ARS (16/18 [88.9%] vs. 9/21 [42.9%], p = 0.008). The ICERs for intraoperative complications and 90-day readmissions were -$181,390.9 (favoring L-ARS) and $285,042.9 (favoring R-ARS), respectively.
conclusionOverall, R-ARS may not offer superior short-term safety compared to L-ARS, utilizes greater resources, and appears to be less cost-effective.
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.