SynthesisJSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
Robotic versus Laparoscopic Hiatal Hernia Repair in Elderly Patients.
Synthesis in JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Minimally invasive techniques have become the preferred approach for hiatal hernia repair in elderly patients, offering reduced morbidity and shorter recovery compared with open surgery. The introduction of robotic-assisted surgery provides enhanced 3-dimensional visualization and instrument dexterity, potentially improving outcomes in complex or large hernias. However, whether these advantages translate into superior clinical results compared with conventional laparoscopy in patients over 65 years remains uncertain. This review summarizes and evaluates the evidence comparing robotic and laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair in elderly individuals. Database: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for studies published from 2015 to 2025. Eligible randomized or observational studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair in patients aged ≥65 years were identified according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Eighteen observational studies encompassing approximately 700,000 patients were included; several studies reported mixed-age cohorts, and outcomes specific to patients aged ≥65 years were extracted when available. Pooled analysis using random-effects models demonstrated no significant difference in overall complication rates (odds ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.87-1.09) or in recurrence and mortality between techniques. Robotic repair showed shorter hospital stays by approximately half a day and lower conversion-to-open rates, particularly in complex hernias. Conclusion: Robotic hiatal hernia repair demonstrates safety and efficacy comparable to laparoscopy in elderly patients, with possible benefits in complex or reoperative cases. Current evidence supports both as effective minimally invasive approaches; however, further prospective, age-specific studies are needed to validate long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness.
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.