Since its introduction, the Da Vinci surgical system for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) has been the subject of much controversy. Several prospective randomized controlled trials, conducted to assess its effectiveness and safety, have revealed differences. We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficiency and safety of robotic Nissen fundoplication for GERD.
We performed a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and OVID-MEDLINE, from 1950 to the present, with daily updates generated by a computer, to identify all published papers on robotic Nissen fundoplication for the treatment of GERD. The meta-analysis was performed by Review Manager Version 5.0. Differences of the overall effect were considered significant at P < 0.05 with a 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI).
Five studies with a collective total of 160 patients were included. Apart from intra-operative and post-operative complications, which were excluded because of incomplete primary data, there were no significant differences in outcomes, including of total operation interval (P = 0.16), effective operation interval (P = 0.95), post-operative dysphagia (P = 0.94), intra-operative conversion (P = 0.94), re-operation (P = 0.43), hospital stay (P = 0.97) and in-hospital costs (P = 0.08).
As current data do not clarify the advantages of the Da Vinci surgical system in Nissen fundoplication for GERD, we believe that a large a multi-center controlled trial is warranted.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Single-incision laparoscopic fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease is not widespread because of its technical difficulty. On the other hand, patients with gastroesophageal reflux frequently also have mental retardation and eating disorders. We have been performing single-incision laparoscopic fundoplication via a gastrostomy site incision since October 2009 for these patients. The treated patients were 4 males and 1 female. A small skin incision was made on the gastrostomy site and a SILS port was placed. Under pneumoperitoneum, a single-incision laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication and gastrostomy were performed with a flexible scope, conventional instruments, and high-dexterity instruments. The pneumoperitoneal time was 115-180 min and blood loss was 1-15 ml. There were no intra- or postoperative complications. The hospital stay was under 8 days for all patients. Using this procedure, the incidence of postoperative intestinal obstruction was very low. The results indicate this procedure can be used as a standard operation for these patients in the future.
Surgery Today 01/2012; 42(6):601-4. DOI:10.1007/s00595-012-0120-1 · 1.53 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Although laparoscopic fundoplication is an effective, minimally invasive surgical technique for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) that failed to be treated with medicine, with wide implementation its technical limitations have become increasingly clear. Recently, robot-assisted laparoscopic fundoplication (RALF) was considered a new approach that makes up for the deficiency of conventional laparoscopic fundoplication (CLF). This systematic review aimed to assess the feasibility and efficiency of robot-assisted laparoscopic fundoplication for GERD.
Two reviewers independently searched and identified seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and four clinical controlled trials (CCTs) of RALF versus CLF for GERD in the Cochrane database, Medline, Embase, and Science citation index between 2001 and 2009. The main outcomes were operating time, complication rate, hospital stay, and costs. The meta-analysis was performed by Review Manager 5.0 software. The effect size of the clinical outcomes was evaluated by odds ratio (OR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and standard mean difference (SMD) according to different data type. Heterogeneity and sensitivity analysis were used to account for rationality of pooling data and sources of heterogeneity.
Of 483 studies found, a total of 11 trials were included in this review; among 533 patients, 198 patients underwent RALF and 335 patients underwent CLF. The results of meta-analysis showed that the postoperative complication rate (OR = 0.35, 95% CI = [0.13, 0.93], p = 0.04) is lower for RALF, but the total operating time (WMD = 24.05, 95% CI = [5.19, 42.92], p = 0.01) is longer for RALF compared with those for CLF. Statistically, there was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to perioperative complication rate (OR = 0.67, 95% CI = [0.30, 1.48], p = 1.00) and length of hospital stay (WMD = 0.00, 95% CI = [-0.25, 0.26], p = 0.04).
Systematic review of the literature indicates that RALF is a feasible and safe alternative to surgical treatment of GERD. However, since it lacks obvious advantages with respect to operating time, length of hospital stay and cost, RALF has limitations for its extensive application in clinics.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare clinical outcome following laparoscopic and robotic Nissen fundoplication. A systematic literature search of Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library databases was performed. Primary outcome measures were the requirement for re-operation, postoperative mortality and postoperative dysphagia. Secondary outcome measures were operative time, length of hospital stay, operative complications and cost. Six randomized trials, of 226 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in requirement for re-operation or in postoperative dysphagia. There was a significantly reduced total operative time in the laparoscopic group (weighted mean difference = 4.154; 95% CI = 1.932-6.375; p = 0.0002). There was no significant difference between robotic and laparoscopic groups for hospital stay or operative complications. Clinical results from robotic Nissen fundoplication were comparable to the standard laparoscopic approach, but there was associated increased operative time and procedure cost.
International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery 06/2010; 6(2):125-31. DOI:10.1002/rcs.309 · 1.53 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.