SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Safety of robotic-assisted surgery in redo fundoplication: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Redo fundoplication is technically challenging and associated with higher complication rates compared with primary procedures. Robotic platforms may offer technical advantages in reoperative foregut surgery; however, comparative outcomes with laparoscopy remain unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to compare perioperative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic redo fundoplication. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted by searching five databases up to July 2026. Primary outcome was intraoperative complications, including leaks, gastric, esophageal, and bowel injuries. Secondary outcomes were postoperative complications (POC), operative time (OT) and length of stay (LOS). The random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled Odds Ratios (OR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using I² statistics. Of 269 studies screened, 4 cohort studies comprising 257 patients were included. Robotic cases accounted for 49% (n = 126). There was no difference between groups in terms of sex, age and preoperative BMI. Robotic cases had longer OT (MD = 26.36 min, p = 0.03) but shorter LOS (MD = - 0.16 days, p = 0.55), with a lower risk of intraoperative complications (6.3% vs. 9.1%; OR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.22-1.47, I²: 0%). There were no differences in POC rates. In this meta-analysis, robotic redo fundoplication was as safe as the laparoscopic approach, in terms of intra- and postoperative complications. Higher-quality prospective evidence is needed before firm conclusions can be drawn.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42593598What 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.