Favorable peri-operative outcomes observed in paraesophageal hernia repair with robotic approach.
Paraesophageal hernia repair
Robotic surgery
Journal
Surgical endoscopy
ISSN: 1432-2218
Titre abrégé: Surg Endosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8806653
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2021
06 2021
Historique:
received:
04
04
2020
accepted:
09
06
2020
pubmed:
20
6
2020
medline:
30
9
2021
entrez:
20
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The robotic surgical approach offers enhanced visualization, dexterity and reach, which may facilitate the more technically demanding portions of paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair such as hiatal reconstruction and mediastinal dissection. We sought to compare the peri-operative clinical outcomes of the laparoscopic vs. robotic approach to PEH repair. A prospective, IRB-approved database was maintained for all robotic PEH repairs performed by a single surgeon at a tertiary academic hospital from 2009 to 2019. A retrospective review of laparoscopic PEH over this same time period was used as a comparison group. Outcome measures included: operative time, conversion to open, need for an esophageal lengthening procedure, operative equipment costs and length of stay (LOS). 1854 patients underwent PEH repair during this time period (830 robotic; 1024 laparoscopic). Demographics of both groups were similar, including BMI and PEH type, although a higher proportion of robotic cases were re-operative PEH repairs (32.5% vs 24.0%; p < 0.001). Patients who underwent a robotic PEH had a significant reduction in esophageal lengthening procedures performed (0.1% vs. 11.0%; p < 0.001), conversion to open (0% vs. 7.0%; p < 0.001), and LOS (1.8 days vs. 3.1 days; p < 0.001). Intra-operative equipment costs were similar. In one of the largest robotic PEH case series reported to date, there were significant improvements in peri-operative outcomes in patients undergoing a robotic-assisted approach. Although a greater number of patients in the robotic group were redo PEH repairs, when compared to the laparoscopic group, there were no conversions to open and significantly fewer esophageal lengthening procedures, both of which carry significant morbidity. The similar intra-operative costs were likely balanced by the higher costs associated with stapling equipment and conversions in the laparoscopic group. Our findings show that the robotic PEH repair is safe and can result in improved peri-operative outcomes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The robotic surgical approach offers enhanced visualization, dexterity and reach, which may facilitate the more technically demanding portions of paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair such as hiatal reconstruction and mediastinal dissection. We sought to compare the peri-operative clinical outcomes of the laparoscopic vs. robotic approach to PEH repair.
METHODS
A prospective, IRB-approved database was maintained for all robotic PEH repairs performed by a single surgeon at a tertiary academic hospital from 2009 to 2019. A retrospective review of laparoscopic PEH over this same time period was used as a comparison group. Outcome measures included: operative time, conversion to open, need for an esophageal lengthening procedure, operative equipment costs and length of stay (LOS).
RESULTS
1854 patients underwent PEH repair during this time period (830 robotic; 1024 laparoscopic). Demographics of both groups were similar, including BMI and PEH type, although a higher proportion of robotic cases were re-operative PEH repairs (32.5% vs 24.0%; p < 0.001). Patients who underwent a robotic PEH had a significant reduction in esophageal lengthening procedures performed (0.1% vs. 11.0%; p < 0.001), conversion to open (0% vs. 7.0%; p < 0.001), and LOS (1.8 days vs. 3.1 days; p < 0.001). Intra-operative equipment costs were similar.
CONCLUSIONS
In one of the largest robotic PEH case series reported to date, there were significant improvements in peri-operative outcomes in patients undergoing a robotic-assisted approach. Although a greater number of patients in the robotic group were redo PEH repairs, when compared to the laparoscopic group, there were no conversions to open and significantly fewer esophageal lengthening procedures, both of which carry significant morbidity. The similar intra-operative costs were likely balanced by the higher costs associated with stapling equipment and conversions in the laparoscopic group. Our findings show that the robotic PEH repair is safe and can result in improved peri-operative outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32556775
doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-07700-7
pii: 10.1007/s00464-020-07700-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3085-3089Références
McLaren PJ, Hart KD, Hunter JG, Dolan JP (2017) Paraesophageal hernia repair outcomes using minimally invasive approaches. JAMA Surg 152:1176–1178
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.2868
Schauer PR, Ikramuddin S, McLaughlin RH, Graham TO, Slivka A, Lee KKW, Schraut WH, Luketich JD (1998) Comparison of laparoscopic versus open repair of paraesophageal hernia. Am J Surg 176:659–665
doi: 10.1016/S0002-9610(98)00272-4
Boushey RP, Moloo H, Burpee S, Schlachta CM, Poulin EC, Haggar F, Trottier DC, Mamazza J (2008) Laparoscopic repair of paraesophageal hernias: a Canadian experience. Can J Surg 51:355–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-428X(08)50096-8
doi: 10.1016/S0008-428X(08)50096-8
pubmed: 18841230
pmcid: 2556541
Banki F, Weaver M, Roife D, Kaushik C, Khanna A, Ochoa K, Miller CC (2017) Laparoscopic reoperative antireflux surgery is more cost-effective than open approach. J Am Coll Surg 225:235–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2017.03.019
doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2017.03.019
pubmed: 28412539
Chan EG, Sarkaria IS, Luketich JD, Levy R (2019) Laparoscopic approach to paraesophageal hernia repair. Thorac Surg Clin 29:395–403
doi: 10.1016/j.thorsurg.2019.07.002
Supe AN, Kulkarni GV, Supe PA (2010) Ergonomics in laparoscopic surgery. J Minim Access Surg 6:31–36
doi: 10.4103/0972-9941.65161
Cole AP, Trinh QD, Sood A, Menon M (2017) The rise of robotic surgery in the new millennium. J Urol 197:S213–S215
pubmed: 28010986
Morino M, Pellegrino L, Giaccone C, Garrone C, Rebecchi F (2006) Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Br J Surg 93:553–558. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.5325
doi: 10.1002/bjs.5325
pubmed: 16552744
El NI, Mélot C, Closset J, Demoor V, Bétroune K, Feron P, Lingier P, Gelin M (2006) Evaluation of da Vinci Nissen fundoplication clinical results and cost minimization. World J Surg 30:1050–1054. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-005-7950-6
doi: 10.1007/s00268-005-7950-6
Müller-Stich BP, Reiter MA, Wente MN, Bintintan VV, Köninger J, Büchler MW, Gutt CN (2007) Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic fundoplication: short-term outcome of a pilot randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 21:1800–1805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9268-y
doi: 10.1007/s00464-007-9268-y
Wang Z, Zheng Q, Jin Z (2012) Meta-analysis of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. ANZ J Surg 82:112–117
doi: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2011.05964.x
Galvani CA, Loebl H, Osuchukwu O, Samamé J, Apel ME, Ghaderi I (2016) Robotic-assisted paraesophageal hernia repair: initial experience at a single institution. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 26:290–295. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2016.0096
doi: 10.1089/lap.2016.0096
Gehrig T, Mehrabi A, Fischer L, Kenngott H, Hinz U, Gutt CN, Müller-Stich BP (2013) Robotic-assisted paraesophageal hernia repair—a case-control study. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 398:691–696. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-012-0982-0
doi: 10.1007/s00423-012-0982-0
Tartaglia N, Pavone G, Di Lascia A, Vovola F, Maddalena F, Fersini A, Pacilli M, Ambrosi A (2020) Robotic voluminous paraesophageal hernia repair: a case report and review of the literature. J Med Case Rep 14:25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13256-020-2347-6
doi: 10.1186/s13256-020-2347-6
pubmed: 32019608
pmcid: 6998085
Kirkpatrick T, Zimmerman B, LeBlanc K (2018) Initial experience with robotic hernia repairs: a review of 150 cases. Surg Technol Int 33:139–147
pubmed: 30117136
Brenkman HJF, Parry K, Van Hillegersberg R, Ruurda JP (2016) Robot-assisted laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair: promising anatomical and functional results. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 26:465–469. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2016.0065
doi: 10.1089/lap.2016.0065
Vasudevan V, Reusche R, Nelson E, Kaza S (2018) Robotic paraesophageal hernia repair: a single-center experience and systematic review. J Robot Surg 12:81–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0697-x
doi: 10.1007/s11701-017-0697-x
pubmed: 28374223
Dunnican WJ, Singh TP, Guptill GG, Doorly MG, Ata A (2008) Early robotic experience with paraesophageal hernia repair and Nissen fundoplication: short-term outcomes. J Robot Surg 2:41–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-008-0079-5
doi: 10.1007/s11701-008-0079-5
pubmed: 27637217
O’Rourke RW, Khajanchee YS, Urbach DR, Lee NN, Lockhart B, Hansen PD, Swanstrom LL (2003) Extended transmediastinal dissection: an alternative to gastroplasty for short esophagus. Arch Surg 138:735–740. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.138.7.735
doi: 10.1001/archsurg.138.7.735
pubmed: 12860754
Zehetner J, DeMeester SR, Ayazi S, Kilday P, Alicuben ET, DeMeester TR (2014) Laparoscopic wedge fundectomy for collis gastroplasty creation in patients with a foreshortened esophagus. Ann Surg 260:1030–1033. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000000504
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000504
pubmed: 24487747
Kohn GP, Price RR, Demeester SR, Zehetner J, Muensterer OJ, Awad Z, Mittal SK, Richardson WS, Stefanidis D, Fanelli RD (2013) Guidelines for the management of hiatal hernia. Surg Endosc 27:4409–4428
doi: 10.1007/s00464-013-3173-3
Kao AM, Otero J, Schlosser KA, Marx JE, Prasad T, Colavita PD, Heniford BT (2018) One more time: redo paraesophageal hernia repair results in safe, durable outcomes compared with primary repairs. undefined
Zárate Rodriguez JG, Zihni AM, Ohu I, Cavallo JA, Ray S, Cho S, Awad MM (2019) Ergonomic analysis of laparoscopic and robotic surgical task performance at various experience levels. Surg Endosc 33:1938–1943. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6478-4
doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6478-4
pubmed: 30350099