Robotics vs Laparoscopy in Foregut Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Analyzing Hiatal Hernia Repair and Heller Myotomy.

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery remains the mainstay of treating foregut pathologies. Several studies have shown improved outcomes with the robotic approach. A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic hiatal hernia repairs (HHR) and Heller myotomy (HM) repairs is needed.

STUDY DESIGN

PubMed, Embase and Scopus databases were searched for studies published between January 2010 and November 2022. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool. Assessed outcomes included intra- and post-operative outcomes. We pooled the dichotomous data using the Mantel-Haenszel random effects model to report odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and continuous data to report mean difference (MD) and 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Twenty-two comparative studies enrolling 196,339 patients were included. Thirteen (13,426 robotic, 168,335 laparoscopic patients) studies assessed HHR outcomes, while nine (2,384 robotic, 12,225 laparoscopic patients) assessed HM outcomes. Robotic HHR had a non-significantly shorter length of hospital stay (LOS) [MD -0.41 (95% CI -0.87, -0.05)], fewer conversions to open [OR 0.22 (95% CI 0.03, 1.49)], and lower morbidity rates [OR 0.76 (95% CI 0.47, 1.23)]. Robotic HM led to significantly fewer esophageal perforations [OR 0.36 (95% CI 0.15, 0.83)], reinterventions [OR 0.18 (95% CI 0.07, 0.47)] a non-significantly shorter LOS [MD -0.31 (95% CI -0.62, 0.00)]. Both robotic HM and HHR had significantly longer operative times.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic and robotic HHR and HM repairs have similar safety profiles and perioperative outcomes. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to compare the two methods, given the low to moderate quality of included studies.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 by the American College of Surgeons. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.