Comparing Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted versus Conventional Laparoscopic Hiatal Hernia Repair
Keywords:gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), hiatal hernia, robotic, laparoscopic, postoperative complications, length of stay
Introduction. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for anti-reflux and hiatal hernia surgery is becoming increasingly prevalent. The purpose of this study was to compare hospital length of stay and outcomes of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair.
Methods. A retrospective review was conducted of 58 patients who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic (n = 42, 72.4%) or conventional laparoscopic (n = 16, 27.6%) hiatal hernia repair.
Results. Patient characteristics and comorbidities were similar between groups. The robotic-assisted group had a significantly higher use of fundoplication (81.3% vs. 38.1%; p = 0.007). Complications observed between the robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic groups were pneumothorax (6.3% vs. 11.9%, p = 1.000), infection (0% vs. 4.8%, p = 1.000), perforation (0% vs. 2.4%, P=1.000), bleeding (6.3% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.479), ICU admission (31.3% vs. 11.9%, p = 0.119), and mechanical ventilation (18.8% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.60). There were no reported complications of dysphagia, DVT/PE, MI, or death in either group. Hospital length of stay was similar for robotic vs conventional patients (3.0 vs. 2.5 days, p = 0.301).
Conclusions. This study’s data showed robotic-assisted hiatal hernia repair has comparable outcomes to conventional laparoscopic repair.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2022 Marcus Tjeerdsma, M.D., Karson Quinn, M.A., Stephen D. Helmer, Ph.D., Kyle B. Vincent, M.D.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
All articles in the Kansas Journal of Medicine are licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License (CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0).