Robotic versus laparoscopic approach to treat symptomatic achalasia: systematic review with meta-analysis.


Journal

Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus
ISSN: 1442-2050
Titre abrégé: Dis Esophagus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8809160

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
13 Dec 2019
Historique:
accepted: 05 06 2019
received: 01 04 2019
revised: 09 05 2019
pubmed: 6 7 2019
medline: 16 5 2020
entrez: 6 7 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Minimally invasive Heller myotomy is considered the gold standard surgical approach for symptomatic achalasia because it is a safe and effective procedure. Over the last years, several studies comparing the laparoscopic and robotic approach for Heller myotomy have been published. Although the robotic approach appears to have some advantages over standard laparoscopy, data on this topic are still controversial and no definite conclusions have been drawn. This metanalysis has been designed to systematically evaluate and compare the effectiveness and safety of the robot-assisted Heller myotomy as compared to the standard laparoscopic approach. According to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic search on both laparoscopic and robotic Heller myotomy was performed in all the major electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE), using the following search string: (achalasia OR Dor) AND robotic. Six articles were included in the final analysis. A metaregression analysis was performed to assess the possible effects of demographic variables (age, gender, body mass indes (BMI)) and previous abdominal surgery or endoscopic intervention on the analyzed outcomes. No statistical difference was observed in operative times (mean difference (MD) = 20.79, P = 0.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.05,51,62), estimated blood loss (MD = -17.10, P = 0.13, 95% CI -40.48,5.08), conversion rate to open surgery (risk difference (RD) = -0.01, P = 0.33, 95% CI -0.05,0.02), length of hospital stay (MD = -0.73, P = 0.15, 95% CI -1.71,0.25) and long-term recurrence (odds ratio (OR) = 0.59, P = 0.45, 95% CI 0.15,2.33). On the contrary, the robotic approach was found to be associated with a significantly significant lower rate of intraoperative esophageal perforations (OR = 0.13, P < 0.001, 95% CI 0.04, 0.45). Our results suggest that the robotic approach is safer than the laparoscopic Heller myotomy, encouraging the use of robot-assisted surgery. However, our analysis is limited because of the exiguous number of comparative studies and because most of the included studies were statistically underpowered, given the small sample size. Moreover, a high degree of heterogeneity was observed in most of published studies. Taking in consideration the additional costs of robot-assisted procedures, larger Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are advocated to confirm the safety and effectiveness of the robotic approach, and its advantages over standard laparoscopic surgery. In conclusion, well-designed prospective trials and RCTs with homogeneous parameters are needed to draw definitive conclusions about the best surgical approach to pursue in treating symptomatic achalasia.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31274153
pii: 5528452
doi: 10.1093/dote/doz062
doi:

Types de publication

Comparative Study Journal Article Meta-Analysis Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1-8

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Auteurs

M Milone (M)

Department of Clinical Medcine and Surgery, Federico II University, Naples, Italy.

M Manigrasso (M)

Department of Clinical Medcine and Surgery, Federico II University, Naples, Italy.

S Vertaldi (S)

Department of Clinical Medcine and Surgery, Federico II University, Naples, Italy.

N Velotti (N)

Department of Clinical Medcine and Surgery, Federico II University, Naples, Italy.

G Aprea (G)

Department of Clinical Medcine and Surgery, Federico II University, Naples, Italy.

F Maione (F)

Department of Clinical Medcine and Surgery, Federico II University, Naples, Italy.

N Gennarelli (N)

Department of Clinical Medcine and Surgery, Federico II University, Naples, Italy.

G De Simone (G)

Department of Clinical Medcine and Surgery, Federico II University, Naples, Italy.

B De Conno (B)

Department of Clinical Medcine and Surgery, Federico II University, Naples, Italy.

M Pesce (M)

Department of Clinical Medcine and Surgery, Federico II University, Naples, Italy.
Division of Gastroenterology, Department of GI Physiology, University College London Hospitals, London, England, UK.

G Sarnelli (G)

Department of Clinical Medcine and Surgery, Federico II University, Naples, Italy.

G D De Palma (GD)

Department of Clinical Medcine and Surgery, Federico II University, Naples, Italy.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH