How does robotic anti-reflux surgery compare with traditional open and laparoscopic techniques: a cost and outcomes analysis

Robotic surgery versus Laparoscopic surgery for anti-reflux and hiatal hernia surgery: a short-term outcomes and cost systematic literature review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The objective of this study is to compare the operative time, intraoperative complications, length of stay, readmission rates, overall complications, mortality, and cost associated with Robotic Surgery (RS) and Laparascopic Surgery (LS) in anti-reflux and hiatal hernia surgery.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science and Scopus databases. Studies comparing short-term outcomes and cost between RS and LS in patients with anti-reflux and hiatal hernia were included. Data on operative time, complications, length of stay, readmission rates, overall complications, mortality, and cost were extracted. Quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the MINORS scale.

RESULTS

Fourteen retrospective observational studies involving a total of 555,368 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed no statistically significant difference in operative time, intraoperative complications, length of stay, readmission rates, overall complications, and mortality between RS and LS. However, LS was associated with lower costs compared to RS.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that RS has non-inferior short-term outcomes in anti-reflux and hiatal hernia surgery, compared to LS. LS is more cost-effective, but RS offers potential benefits such as improved visualization and enhanced surgical techniques. Further research, including randomized controlled trials and long-term outcome studies, is needed to validate and refine these findings.

A decade of experience with minimally invasive anti-reflux operations: robot vs. LESS

BACKGROUND

The increasing use of robotic systems for anti-reflux operations prompted this study to evaluate and compare the efficacy of robotic and Laparo-Endoscopic Single-Site (LESS) approaches.

METHODS

From 2012, 228 robotic fundoplication and 518 LESS fundoplication patients were prospectively followed, analyzing perioperative metrics. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD); significance at p ≤ 0.05.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing a robotic vs. LESS fundoplication were 67 (64 ± 13.7) vs. 61 (59 ± 15.1) years-old with BMIs of 25 (25 ± 3.2) vs. 26 (25 ± 3.9) kg/m2 (p = 0.001 and 1.00, respectively). 72% of patients who underwent the robotic approach had a previous abdominal operation(s) vs 44% who underwent the LESS approach (p = 0.0001). 38% vs. 8% had a re-operative fundoplication (p = 0.0001), 59% vs. 45% had a type IV hiatal hernia (p = 0.0004). Operative duration was 160 (176 ± 76.7) vs. 130 (135 ± 50.5) min (p = 0.0001). There were 0 (robotic) vs. 5 (LESS) conversions to a different approach (p = 0.33). 5 Patients vs. 3 patients experienced postoperative complications (p = 0.06), and length of stay (LOS) was 1 (2 ± 2.6) vs. 1 (1 ± 3.2) days (p = 0.0001). Patient symptomatic dysphagia preoperatively for the robotic vs. LESS approach was scored as 2 (2.4 ± 1.9) vs. 1 (1.9 ± 1.6). Postoperatively, symptomatic dysphagia was scored as 1 (1.5 ± 1.6) vs. 1 (1.7 ± 1.7). The change in these scores was - 1 (- 1 ± 2.2) vs. 0 (- 0.5 ± 2.2) (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Despite longer operative times and LOS in older patients, the robotic approach is efficient in undertaking very difficult operations, including patients with type IV or recurrent hiatal hernias. Furthermore, preoperative anti-reflux operations were more likely to be undertaken with the robotic approach than the LESS approach. The patient's postoperative symptomatic dysphagia improved relatively more than after the LESS approach. The vast majority of patients who underwent the LESS approach enjoyed improved cosmesis, thus, making LESS a stronger candidate for more routine operations. Despite patient selection bias, the robotic and LESS approaches to anti-reflux operations are safe, efficacious, and should be situationally utilized.

Robotic approach together with an enhanced recovery programme improve the perioperative outcomes for complex hepatectomy

Objective

Robotic surgery has more advantages than traditional surgical approaches to complex liver resection; however, the robotic approach is invariably associated with increased cost. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are beneficial in conventional surgeries.

Methods

The present study investigated the effects of robotic surgery combined with an ERAS protocol on perioperative outcomes and hospitalization costs of patients undergoing complex hepatectomy. Clinical data from consecutive robotic and open liver resections (RLR and OLR, respectively) performed in our unit in the pre-ERAS (January 2019-June 2020) and ERAS (July 2020-December 2021) periods were collected. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the impact of ERAS and surgical approaches-alone or in combination-on LOS and costs.

Results

A total of 171 consecutive complex liver resections were analyzed. ERAS patients had a shorter median LOS and decreased total hospitalization cost, without a significant difference in the complication rate compared with the pre-ERAS cohort. RLR patients had a shorter median LOS and decreased major complications, but with increased total hospitalization cost, compared with OLR patients. Comparing the four combinations of perioperative management and surgical approaches, ERAS + RLR had the shortest LOS and the fewest major complications, whereas pre-ERAS + RLR had the highest hospitalization costs. Multivariate analysis found that the robotic approach was protective against prolonged LOS, whereas the ERAS pathway was protective against high costs.

Conclusions

The ERAS + RLR approach optimized postoperative complex liver resection outcomes and hospitalization costs compared with other combinations. The robotic approach combined with ERAS synergistically optimized outcome and overall cost compared with other strategies, and may be the best combination for optimizing perioperative outcomes for complex RLR.

A Narrative Review on Treatment of Giant Hiatal Hernia

Background: The current gold standard of treatment for giant hiatal hernias (GHHs) is laparoscopic surgery. Laparoscopic surgery was performed as a less invasive procedure for paraesophageal hernias more than 25 years ago. Its viability and safety have almost all been shown. Materials and Methods: A review of recent and current studies' literature was done. Prospective randomized trials, systematic reviews, clinical reviews, and original articles were all investigated. The data were gathered in the form of a narrative evaluation. We examine the state of laparoscopic GHH repair today and outline the GHH management strategy. Results: In this review, we clear up misunderstandings of GHH and address bad habits that may have contributed to poor results, and we have consequently performed a methodical evaluation of GHH. First, we address subcategorizing GHH and provide criteria to define them. The preoperative workup strategies are then discussed, with a focus on any pertinent and frequent atypical symptoms, indications for surgery, timing of surgery, and the importance of surgery. The approach to the techniques and the logic behind surgery are then presented along with some important dissection techniques. Finally, we debate the role of mesh reinforcement and evaluate the data in terms of recurrence, reoperation rate, complications, and delayed stomach emptying. Finally, we suggest a justification for common postoperative investigations. Conclusions: Surgery is the only effective treatment for GHH at the moment. If the right operational therapy principles are applied, this is generally successful. There is a growing interest in laparoscopic paraesophageal hiatal hernia repair as a result of the introduction of laparoscopic antireflux surgery. Today's less invasive procedures provide a better therapeutic choice with a lower risk.

Enteral formula compared to Nissen-Fundoplication: Data from a retrospective analysis on tolerance, utility, applicability, and safeness in children with neurological diseases

Objectives and study

Approximately 46–90% of children with neurological disorders (NDs) suffer from gastrointestinal diseases, such as gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD), constipation, or malnutrition. Therefore, enteral feeding is often necessary to achieve nutritional requirements. The treatment of GERD could be based on pharmacological therapy, nutritional treatment (changing the type of formula), or surgical treatment (Nissen Fundoplication, NF). The aim of this study was to describe and compare resource consumption between NE based on different formulas and NF in patients with ND.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis on all children with neurological damage (age: 29 days−17 years) treated from January 2009 to January 2019 due to nutritional problems and food and/or gastrointestinal intolerances. For all patients, demographic and anthropometric characteristics, symptoms, type of nutrition (formula and enteral access), and number and type of outpatient or emergency room visits were collected. Patients with <24 months of age at the closing of the database and with <24 months of follow-up were excluded.

Results

Out of 376 children, 309 children (M: 158; median age: 4 IQR 1–10) were enrolled, among which, 65 patients (NF group M: 33; median age: 5.3 IQR 1.8–10.7) underwent NF. Vomit, GERD, and dysphagia were more represented in the NF group (p < 0.05). Our analysis shows that the NF group seems to present a lower number of hospitalization and a lower number of visits for non-GI disorders, but a higher number of visits for GI disorders compared to non-NF. In the NF group, a higher prevalence of the use of amino-acid-based formula and free diet is observed, with a trend for the lower prevalence of casein-based or whey+casein-based formula (Fisher test p = 0.072). The median cost of a patient enrolled in the database is € 19,515 ± 540 ($ 20,742.32 ± 573.96) per year, with no significant difference between the two groups. Regarding formula, at baseline, 76 children consumed a free diet, 24 a casein-based formula, 139 a whey+casein-based formula, 46 a whey-based formula, and 24 an amino-acid-based formula.

Conclusions

In conclusion, compared to EN, NF may not improve the clinical aspect and related costs in children with NDs. Considering the psychological and QoL burden for patients, in a “step-up” strategy, EN could be proposed as an efficient alternative to NF.

A systematic review of robot-assisted anti-reflux surgery to examine reporting standards

Robot-assisted anti-reflux surgery (RA-ARS) is increasingly being used to treat refractory gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. The IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term follow up) Collaboration's framework aims to improve the evaluation of surgical innovation, but the extent to which the evolution of RA-ARS has followed this model is unclear. This study aims to evaluate the standard to which RA-ARS has been reported during its evolution, in relation to the IDEAL framework. A systematic review from inception to June 2020 was undertaken to identify all primary English language studies pertaining to RA-ARS. Studies of paraoesophageal or giant hernias were excluded. Data extraction was informed by IDEAL guidelines and summarised by narrative synthesis. Twenty-three studies were included: two case reports, five case series, ten cohort studies and six randomised controlled trials. The majority were single-centre studies comparing RA-ARS and laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Eleven (48%) studies reported patient selection criteria, with high variability between studies. Few studies reported conflicts of interest (30%), funding arrangements (26%), or surgeons' prior robotic experience (13%). Outcome reporting was heterogeneous; 157 distinct outcomes were identified. No single outcome was reported in all studies.The under-reporting of important aspects of study design and high degree of outcome heterogeneity impedes the ability to draw meaningful conclusions from the body of evidence. There is a need for further well-designed prospective studies and randomised trials, alongside agreement about outcome selection, measurement and reporting for future RA-ARS studies.

Robotic Complex Fundoplication in Patients at High-Risk to Fail

Background:

This study was undertaken to analyze our outcomes after robotic fundoplication for GERD in patients with failed antireflux procedures, with type IV (i.e., giant) hiatal hernias, or after extensive intra-abdominal surgery with mesh, and to compare our results to outcomes predicted by the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) Surgical Risk Calculator and to national outcomes reported by NSQIP.

Methods:

100 patients undergoing robotic fundoplication for the aforementioned factors were prospectively followed.

Results:

100 patients, aged 67 (67 ± 10.3) years with body mass index (BMI) of 26 (25 ± 2.9) kg/m² underwent robotic fundoplication for failed antireflux fundoplications (43%), type IV hiatal hernias (31%), or after extensive intra-abdominal surgery with mesh (26%). Operative duration was 184 (196 ± 74.3) min with an estimated blood loss of 24 (51 ± 82.9) mL. Length of stay was 1 (2 ± 3.6) day. Two patients developed postoperative ileus. Two patients were readmitted within 30 days for nausea.

Nationally reported outcomes and those predicted by NSQIP were similar. When comparing our actual outcomes to predicted and national NSQIP outcomes, actual outcomes were superior for serious complications, any complications, pneumonia, surgical site infection, deep vein thrombosis, readmission, return to OR, and sepsis (P < 0.05); our actual outcomes were not worse for renal failure, deaths, cardiac complications, and discharge to a nursing facility.

Conclusions:

Our patients were not a selective group; rather they were more complex than reported in NSQIP. Most of our results after robotic fundoplication were superior to predicted and national outcomes. The utilization of the robotic platform for complex operations and fundoplications to treat patients with GERD is safe and efficacious.

Surgical treatment of GERD: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) has a high worldwide prevalence in adults and children. There is uncertainty regarding medical versus surgical therapy and different surgical techniques. This review assessed outcomes of antireflux surgery versus medical management of GERD in adults and children, robotic versus laparoscopic fundoplication, complete versus partial fundoplication, and minimal versus maximal dissection in pediatric patients.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched (2004-2019) to identify randomized control and non-randomized comparative studies. Two independent reviewers screened for eligibility. Random effects meta-analysis was performed on comparative data. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias and Newcastle Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

From 1473 records, 105 studies were included. Most had high or uncertain risk of bias. Analysis demonstrated that anti-reflux surgery was associated with superior short-term quality of life compared to PPI (Std mean difference =  - 0.51, 95%CI  - 0.63, - 0.40, I² = 0%) however short-term symptom control was not significantly superior (RR = 0.75, 95%CI 0.47, 1.21, I² = 82%). A proportion of patients undergoing operative treatment continue PPI treatment (28%). Robotic and laparoscopic fundoplication outcomes were similar. Compared to total fundoplication, partial fundoplication was associated with higher rates of prolonged PPI usage (RR = 2.06, 95%CI 1.08, 3.94, I² = 45%). There was no statistically significant difference for long-term symptom control (RR = 0.94, 95%CI 0.85, 1.04, I² = 53%) or long-term dysphagia (RR = 0.73, 95%CI 0.52, 1.02, I² = 0%). Ien, minimal dissection during fundoplication was associated with lower reoperation rates than maximal dissection (RR = 0.21, 95%CI 0.06, 0.67).

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence regarding the optimal treatment of GERD often suffers from high risk of bias. Additional high-quality randomized control trials may further inform surgical decision making in the treatment of GERD.

Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is superior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the initial training for surgical novices in an ex vivo porcine model: a randomized crossover study

Background

Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) potentially reduces workload and shortens the surgical learning curve compared to conventional laparoscopy (CL). The present study aimed to compare robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in the initial learning phase for novices.

Methods

In a randomized crossover study, medical students (n = 40) in their clinical years performed both LC and RAC on a cadaveric porcine model. After standardized instructions and basic skill training, group 1 started with RAC and then performed LC, while group 2 started with LC and then performed RAC. The primary endpoint was surgical performance measured with Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) score, secondary endpoints included operating time, complications (liver damage, gallbladder perforations, vessel damage), force applied to tissue, and subjective workload assessment.

Results

Surgical performance was better for RAC than for LC for total OSATS (RAC = 77.4 ± 7.9 vs. LC = 73.8 ± 9.4; p = 0.025, global OSATS (RAC = 27.2 ± 1.0 vs. LC = 26.5 ± 1.6; p = 0.012, and task specific OSATS score (RAC = 50.5 ± 7.5 vs. LC = 47.1 ± 8.5; p = 0.037). There were less complications with RAC than with LC (10 (25.6%) vs. 26 (65.0%), p = 0.006) but no difference in operating times (RAC = 77.0 ± 15.3 vs. LC = 75.5 ± 15.3 min; p = 0.517). Force applied to tissue was similar. Students found RAC less physical demanding and less frustrating than LC.

Conclusions

Novices performed their first cholecystectomies with better performance and less complications with RAS than with CL, while operating time showed no differences. Students perceived less subjective workload for RAS than for CL. Unlike our expectations, the lack of haptic feedback on the robotic system did not lead to higher force application during RAC than LC and did not increase tissue damage. These results show potential advantages for RAS over CL for surgical novices while performing their first RAC and LC using an ex vivo cadaveric porcine model.

Registration number

researchregistry6029

Graphic abstract

Robot-assisted vs. laparoscopic repair of complete upside-down stomach hiatal hernia (the RATHER-study): a prospective comparative single center study

BACKGROUND

Complete upside-down stomach (cUDS) hernias are a subgroup of large hiatal hernias characterized by high risk of life-threatening complications and technically challenging surgical repair including complex mediastinal dissection. In a prospective, comparative clinical study, we evaluated intra- and postoperative outcomes, quality of life and symptomatic recurrence rates in patients with cUDS undergoing robot-assisted, as compared to standard laparoscopic repair (the RATHER-study).

METHODS

All patients with cUDS herniation requiring elective surgery in our institution between July 2015 and June 2019 were evaluated. Patients undergoing primary open surgery or additional associated procedures were not considered. Primary endpoints were intra- and postoperative complications, 30-day morbidity, and mortality. During the 8-53 months follow-up period, patients were contacted by telephone to assess symptoms associated to recurrence, whereas quality of life was evaluated utilizing the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease-Health-Related Quality of Life (GERD-HRQL) questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 55 patients were included. 36 operations were performed with robot-assisted (Rob-G), and 19 with standard laparoscopic (Lap-G) technique. Patients characteristics were similar in both groups. Median operation time was 232 min. (IQR: 145-420) in robot-assisted vs. 163 min. (IQR:112-280) in laparoscopic surgery (p < 0.001). Intraoperative complications occurred in 5/36 (12.5%) cases in the Rob-G group and in 5/19 (26%) cases in the Lap-G group (p = 0.28). No conversion was necessary in either group. Minor postoperative complications occurred in 13/36 (36%) Rob-G patients and 4/19 (21%) Lap-G patients (p = 0.36). Mortality or major complications did not occur in either group. Two asymptomatic recurrences were observed in the Rob-G group only. No patient required revision surgery. Finally, all patients expressed satisfaction for treatment outcome, as indicated by similar GERD-HRQL scores.

CONCLUSION

While robot-assisted surgery provides additional precision, enhanced visualization, and greater feasibility in cUDS hiatal hernia repair, its clinical outcome is at least equal to that obtained by standard laparoscopic surgery.

Surgical management of hiatal hernia vs medical therapy to treat bleeding Cameron lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Cameron lesions (CL) are an under-recognized cause of gastrointestinal bleeding. Diagnosis is often impaired by technical difficulty, and once diagnosed, management remains unclear. Typically, patients are medically managed with proton pump inhibitors (PPI). Small studies have demonstrated improved therapeutic success with surgical management, hypothesizing that reversing mechanical gastric trauma and ischemia allows CL healing. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to compare therapeutic success of surgical versus medical management of Cameron lesions (CL).

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

A comprehensive search and systematic review selected manuscripts using the following inclusion criteria: (1) Endoscopically diagnosed CL (2) Treated surgically (3) Follow-up for resolution of anemia or CL (4) n ≥ 5 (5) Excluding non-English, animal, and studies with patients < 18 years old Meta-analysis was performed to compare resolution of CLs with medical and surgical therapy.

RESULTS

Systematic search retrieved 1664 studies, of these, 14 were included (randomized controlled trial = 1; prospective = 2; retrospective = 11). Patients had a mean age of 61.2 years (range 24-91) and were more often female (59.3%). Follow-up was between 3 and 120 months, and 82.9% of patients had hernias > 5 cm. Surgical management was associated with therapeutic success (OR 5.20, 1.83-14.77, I² = 42%, p < 0.001) with 92% having resolution, compared to 67.2% for those treated with PPI. Surgical complications occurred in 42/109 (38.5%) of patients (48.1% for Open Hill Repair, 15.4% for laparoscopic fundoplication). 40.0% of patients underwent a laparoscopic Nissen or Collis fundoplication, 21.7% underwent open modified Hill repair, and 38.3% had unspecified operations. Hemoglobin improved from 8.85 g/dL pre-operatively to 13.60 g/dL post-operatively. In six studies, surgical patients previously failed medical management.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first systematic review comparing surgical and medical treatment of CL. Surgical management significantly improved therapeutic success. Our study supports therapeutic benefit of surgery in these patients.

Safety of robotic assisted laparoscopic recurrent paraesophageal hernia repair: insights from a large single institution experience

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic repair of recurrent as opposed to primary paraesophageal hernias (PEHs) are historically associated with increased peri-operative complication rates, worsened outcomes, and increased conversion rates. The robotic platform may aid surgeons in these complex revision procedures. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing robotic assisted laparoscopic (RAL) repair of recurrent as opposed to primary PEHs.

METHODS

Patients undergoing RAL primary and recurrent PEH repairs from 2009 to 2017 at a single institution were reviewed. Demographics, use of mesh, estimated blood loss, intra-operative complications, conversion rates, operative time, rates of esophageal/gastric injury, hospital length of stay, re-admission/re-operation rates, recurrence, dysphagia, gas bloat, and pre- and post-operative proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use were analyzed. Analysis was accomplished using Chi-square test/Fischer's exact test for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables.

RESULTS

There were 298 patients who underwent RAL PEH repairs (247 primary, 51 recurrent). They were followed for a median (interquartile range) of 120 (44, 470) days. There were no significant differences in baseline demographics between groups. Patients in the recurrent PEH group had longer operative times, increased use of mesh, and increased length of hospital stay. They were also less likely to undergo fundoplication. There were no significant differences in estimated blood loss, incidence of intra-operative complications, re-admission rates, incidence of post-operative dysphagia and gas bloat, and incidence of post-operative PPI use. There were no conversions to open operative intervention or gastric/esophageal injury/leaks.

CONCLUSIONS

Although repair of recurrent PEHs are historically associated with worse outcomes, in this series, RAL recurrent PEH repairs have similar peri-operative and post-operative outcomes as compared to primary PEH repairs. Whether this is secondary to the potential advantages afforded by the robotic platform deserves further study.

Morbidity and mortality in complex robot-assisted hiatal hernia surgery: 7-year experience in a high-volume center

INTRODUCTION

Published data regarding robot-assisted hiatal hernia repair are mainly limited to small cohorts. This study aimed to provide information on the morbidity and mortality of robot-assisted complex hiatal hernia repair and redo anti-reflux surgery in a high-volume center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients that underwent robot-assisted hiatal hernia repair, redo hiatal hernia repair, and anti-reflux surgery between 2011 and 2017 at the Meander Medical Centre, Amersfoort, the Netherlands were evaluated. Primary endpoints were 30-day morbidity and mortality. Major complications were defined as Clavien-Dindo ≥ IIIb.

RESULTS

Primary surgery 211 primary surgeries were performed by two surgeons. The median age was 67 (IQR 58-73) years. 84.4% of patients had a type III or IV hernia (10.9% Type I; 1.4% Type II; 45.5% Type III; 38.9% Type IV, 1.4% no herniation). In 3.3% of procedures, conversion was required. 17.1% of patients experienced complications. The incidence of major complications was 5.2%. Ten patients (4.7%) were readmitted within 30 days. Symptomatic early recurrence occurred in two patients (0.9%). The 30-day mortality was 0.9%. Redo surgery 151 redo procedures were performed by two surgeons. The median age was 60 (IQR 51-68) years. In 2.0%, the procedure was converted. The overall incidence of complications was 10.6%, while the incidence of major complications was 2.6%. Three patients (2.0%) were readmitted within 30 days. One patient (0.7%) experienced symptomatic early recurrence. No patients died in the 30-day postoperative period.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides valuable information on robot-assisted laparoscopic repair of primary or recurrent hiatal hernia and anti-reflux surgery for both patient and surgeon. Serious morbidity of 5.2% in primary surgery and 2.6% in redo surgery, in this large series with a high surgeon caseload, has to be outweighed by the gain in quality of life or relief of serious medical implications of hiatal hernia when counseling for surgical intervention.

Esophageal hiatal hernia: risk, diagnosis and management

Esophageal hiatal hernia involves abnormal abdominal entry into thoracic cavity. It is classified based on orientation between esophageal junction and diaphragm. Sliding hiatal hernia (Type-I) comprises the most frequent category, emanating from right crus of diaphragm. Type-II esophageal hernia engages both left and right muscular crura. Type-III and IV additionally include the left crus. Age and increased body mass index are key risk factors, and congenital skeletal aberrations trigger pathogenesis through intestinal malrotations. Familiar manifestations include gastric reflux, nausea, bloating, chest and epigastric discomfort, pharyngeal and esophageal expulsion and dysphagia. Weight loss and colorectal bleeding are severe symptoms. Areas covered: This review summarizes updated evidence of pathophysiology, risk factors, diagnosis and management of hiatal hernias. Laparoscopy and oesophagectomy procedures have been discussed as surgical procedures. Expert commentary: Endoscopy identifies untreatable gastric reflux; radiology is better for pre-operative assessments; manometry measures esophageal peristalsis, and CT scanning detects gastric volvulus and associated organ ruptures. Gastric reflux disease is mitigated using antacids and proton pump and histamine-2-receptor blockers. Severe abdominal penetration into chest cavity demands surgical approaches. Hence, esophagectomy has chances of post-operative morbidity, while minimally invasive laparoscopy entails fewer postoperative difficulties and better visualization of hernia and related vascular damages.

Robotic technological aids in esophageal surgery

Robotic technology is an emerging technology that has been developed in order to overcome some limitations of the standard laparoscopic approach, offering a stereoscopic three-dimensional visualization of the surgical field, increased maneuverability of the surgical tools with consequent increased movement accuracy and precision and improved ergonomics. It has been used for the surgical treatment of most benign esophageal disorders. More recently, it has been proposed also for patients with operable esophageal cancer. The current evidence shows that there are no real benefits of the robotic technology over conventional laparoscopy in patients undergoing a fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), hiatal closure for giant hiatal hernia, or Heller myotomy for achalasia. A few small studies suggest potential advantages in patients undergoing redo surgery for failed fundoplication or Heller myotomy, but large comparative studies are needed to better clarify the role of the robotic technology in these patients. Robot-assisted esophagectomy seems to be safe and effective in selected patients; however, there are no data showing superiority of this approach over both conventional laparoscopic and open surgery. The short-term and long-term oncologic results of ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are awaited to validate this approach for the treatment of esophageal cancer.

Robotics in general surgery: A systematic cost assessment

The utilisation of robotic-assisted techniques is a novelty in the field of general surgery. Our intention was to examine the up to date available literature on the cost assessment of robotic surgery of diverse operations in general surgery. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched in a systematic way to retrieve the included studies in our review. Thirty-one studies were retrieved, referring on a vast range of surgical operations. The mean cost for robotic, open and laparoscopic ranged from 2539 to 57,002, 7888 to 16,851 and 1799 to 50,408 Euros, respectively. The mean operative charges ranged from 273.74 to 13,670 Euros. More specifically, for the robotic and laparoscopic gastric fundoplication, the cost ranged from 1534 to 2257 and 657 to 763 Euros, respectively. For the robotic and laparoscopic colectomy, it ranged from 3739 to 17,080 and 3109 to 33,865 Euros, respectively. For the robotic and laparoscopic cholecystectomy, ranged from 1163.75 to 1291 and from 273.74 to 1223 Euros, respectively. The mean non-operative costs ranged from 900 to 48,796 from 8347 to 8800 and from 870 to 42,055 Euros, for robotic, open and laparoscopic technique, respectively. Conversions to laparotomy were present in 34/18,620 (0.18%) cases of laparoscopic and in 22/1488 (1.5%) cases of robotic technique. Duration of surgery robotic, open and laparoscopic ranged from 54.6 to 328.7, 129 to 234, and from 50.2 to 260 min, respectively. The present evidence reveals that robotic surgery, under specific conditions, has the potential to become cost-effective. Large number of cases, presence of industry competition and multidisciplinary team utilisation are some of the factors that could make more reasonable and cost-effective the robotic-assisted technique.

Cost analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery procedures

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgical systems have been used at a rapidly increasing rate in general surgery. Many of these procedures have been performed laparoscopically for years. In a surgical encounter, a significant portion of the total costs is associated with consumable supplies. Our hospital system has invested in a software program that can track the costs of consumable surgical supplies. We sought to determine the differences in cost of consumables with elective laparoscopic and robotic procedures for our health care organization.

METHODS

De-identified procedural cost and equipment utilization data were collected from the Surgical Profitability Compass Procedure Cost Manager System (The Advisory Board Company, Washington, DC) for our health care system for laparoscopic and robotic cholecystectomy, fundoplication, and inguinal hernia between the years 2013 and 2015. Outcomes were length of stay, case duration, and supply cost. Statistical analysis was performed using a t-test for continuous variables, and statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05.

RESULTS

The total cost of consumable surgical supplies was significantly greater for all robotic procedures. Length of stay did not differ for fundoplication or cholecystectomy. Length of stay was greater for robotic inguinal hernia repair. Case duration was similar for cholecystectomy (84.3 robotic and 75.5 min laparoscopic, p = 0.08), but significantly longer for robotic fundoplication (197.2 robotic and 162.1 min laparoscopic, p = 0.01) and inguinal hernia repair (124.0 robotic and 84.4 min laparoscopic, p = ≪0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

We found a significantly increased cost of general surgery procedures for our health care system when cases commonly performed laparoscopically are instead performed robotically. Our analysis is limited by the fact that we only included costs associated with consumable surgical supplies. The initial acquisition cost (over $1 million for robotic surgical system), depreciation, and service contract for the robotic and laparoscopic systems were not included in this analysis.

Esophageal surgery in minimally invasive era

The widespread popularity of new surgical technologies such as laparoscopy, thoracoscopy and robotics has led many surgeons to treat esophageal diseases with these methods. The expected benefits of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) mainly include reductions of postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and pain and better cosmetic results. All of these benefits could potentially be of great interest when dealing with the esophagus due to the potentially severe complications that can occur after conventional surgery. Moreover, robotic platforms are expected to reduce many of the difficulties encountered during advanced laparoscopic and thoracoscopic procedures such as anastomotic reconstructions, accurate lymphadenectomies, and vascular sutures. Almost all esophageal diseases are approachable in a minimally invasive way, including diverticula, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, achalasia, perforations and cancer. Nevertheless, while the limits of MIS for benign esophageal diseases are mainly technical issues and costs, oncologic outcomes remain the cornerstone of any procedure to cure malignancies, for which the long-term results are critical. Furthermore, many of the minimally invasive esophageal operations should be compared to pharmacologic interventions and advanced pure endoscopic procedures; such a comparison requires a difficult literature analysis and leads to some confounding results of clinical trials. This review aims to examine the evidence for the use of MIS in both malignancies and more common benign disease of the esophagus, with a particular emphasis on future developments and ongoing areas of research.

Evaluation of conventional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic redo hiatal hernia and antireflux surgery: a cohort study

Surgery for refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and hiatal hernia leads to recurrence or persisting dysphagia in a minority of patients. Redo antireflux surgery in GERD and hiatal hernia is known for higher morbidity and mortality. This study aims to evaluate conventional versus robot-assisted laparoscopic redo antireflux surgery, with the objective to detect possible advantages for the robot-assisted approach. A single institute cohort of 75 patients who underwent either conventional laparoscopic or robot-assisted laparoscopic redo surgery for recurrent GERD or severe dysphagia between 2008 and 2013 were included in the study. Baseline characteristics, symptoms, medical history, procedural data, hospital stay, complications and outcome were prospectively gathered. The main indications for redo surgery were dysphagia, pyrosis or a combination of both in combination with a proven anatomic abnormality. The mean time to redo surgery was 1.9 and 2.0 years after primary surgery for the conventional and robot-assisted groups, respectively. The number of conversions was lower in the robot-assisted group compared to conventional laparoscopy (1/45 vs. 5/30, p = 0.035) despite a higher proportion of patients with previous surgery by laparotomy (9/45 vs. 1/30, p = 0.038). Median hospital stay was reduced by 1 day (3 vs. 4, p = 0.042). There were no differences in mortality, complications or outcome. Robotic support, when available, can be regarded beneficial in redo surgery for GERD and hiatal hernia. Results of this observational study suggest technical feasibility for minimal-invasive robot-assisted redo surgery after open primary antireflux surgery, a reduced number of conversions and shorter hospital stay.

The impact of robotic cholecystectomy on private practice in a community teaching hospital

BACKGROUND

Recently, through aggressive marketing, robotic cholecystectomy has been gaining popularity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of this technology on private practice and hospital cost and volume.

METHODS

From November 2012 to April 2014, all elective cholecystectomies were evaluated for procedure type, operative time (OR), insurance type and payment, hospital length of stay, and volume. Data were analyzed using the Chi-square test, Student t test and the Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

Of 338 patients, 246 had complete financial records. Of these patients, 84.1% (207) patients were female with mean age of 45.4 ± 17.1 years. Patients were divided into 2 groups; group 1: 220(89.4%) patients had laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and group 2: 26(10.6%) patients had robotic cholecystectomy (RC). The mean direct cost was higher in the robotic group $2,704.08 ± 308.40 vs $1,712.51 ± 379.50; P < .0001. The median gross margin; however, was not statically different (RC: $1,593.00 (Interquartile range $3,936) vs LC: $1,726.00 (Interquartile range $1,480); P = .85). Both case time and OR were higher in the robotic group; case time (RC: 121 ± 15.4 vs LC: 98.4 ± 27.5 minutes, P < .0001); OR (RC: 86.6 ± 14.3 vs LC: 63.9 ± 25.9 minutes, P < .0001). There was no appreciable change over time in either surgeon or hospital volume.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a statistically significant increase in direct cost in RC vs. LC but not in margin. There was no impact in private practice on the number of cases being done robotically, nor there was an increase in hospital volume. This analysis did not include the purchase cost or maintenance of the robot.

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of the Use of Robotic Assisted Laparoscopy in Surgery Compared with Open or Laparoscopic Surgery

BACKGROUND

Robot assisted laparoscopic (RAL) surgery developed to overcome the limitations of laparoscopy to assist in surgical procedures, has high capital and operating costs. Systematically assembled evidence demonstrating its clinical and cost effectiveness would be helpful for its adoption by decision makers.

OBJECTIVE

To summarise the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic (RAL) surgery compared with relevant alternatives. Methods and results of identified studies were assessed to identify the deficiencies in evidence and areas for further research.

METHODS

Studies reporting both costs and outcomes for comparisons of RAL with laparoscopy and/or open surgery were systematically identified. Searches were conducted in February 2015 on MEDLINE, EMBASE and NHS EED. Quality of the included studies was assessed against a standard checklist for economic analyses. Length of hospital stay and operating time (determinants of cost), cost of intervention, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were extracted. To aid comparison, costs were converted into a common currency and price year (2014 US dollars).

RESULTS

Forty-seven eligible studies were identified (full economic evaluation n = 6 and cost analysis n = 41). Economic models were used in 11 (23%) studies. Only three studies used a model considered representative of the disease and clinical pathway with a time-horizon allowing capture of relevant differences in outcomes across strategies. The cost of RAL varied substantially between uses, ranging from US$7011 for hysterectomy to over US$30,000 for radical cystectomy. The majority of estimates were between US$15,000 and US$25,000 per person. In part this difference is explained by the difference between studies in which costs were included. It was also identified to have higher costs than the alternatives it was compared against. Incremental cost per QALY for RAL radical prostatectomy was US$28,801-$31,763 over a 10-year period assuming 200 cases per annum.

CONCLUSION

The clinical evidence available for RAL overall and used within included studies is limited. RAL surgery costs were consistently higher than open and laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, in adopting the robotic technology decision makers need to take into account the cost effectiveness within their own systems. Economic models generated and published for radical prostatectomy and hysterectomy may be adapted to other health systems if the care pathway is similar to provide locally relevant data.

SAGES TAVAC safety and effectiveness analysis: da Vinci ® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA)

BACKGROUND

The da Vinci(®) Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) is a computer-assisted (robotic) surgical system designed to enable and enhance minimally invasive surgery. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has cleared computer-assisted surgical systems for use by trained physicians in an operating room environment for laparoscopic surgical procedures in general, cardiac, colorectal, gynecologic, head and neck, thoracic and urologic surgical procedures. There are substantial numbers of peer-reviewed papers regarding the da Vinci(®) Surgical System, and a thoughtful assessment of evidence framed by clinical opinion is warranted.

METHODS

The SAGES da Vinci(®) TAVAC sub-committee performed a literature review of the da Vinci(®) Surgical System regarding gastrointestinal surgery. Conclusions by the sub-committee were vetted by the SAGES TAVAC Committee and SAGES Executive Board. Following revisions, the document was evaluated by the TAVAC Committee and Executive Board again for final approval.

RESULTS

Several conclusions were drawn based on expert opinion organized by safety, efficacy, and cost for robotic foregut, bariatric, hepatobiliary/pancreatic, colorectal surgery, and single-incision cholecystectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Gastrointestinal surgery with the da Vinci(®) Surgical System is safe and comparable, but not superior to standard laparoscopic approaches. Although clinically acceptable, its use may be costly for select gastrointestinal procedures. Current data are limited to the da Vinci(®) Surgical System; further analyses are needed.

Robot-assisted oesophageal and gastric surgery for benign disease: antireflux operations and Heller's myotomy

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted general surgery operations are being performed more frequently. This review investigates whether robotic assistance results in significant advantages or disadvantages for the operative treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and achalasia.

METHODS

The electronic databases (Medline, Embase, PubMed) were searched for original English language publications for antireflux surgery and Heller's myotomy between January 1990 and December 2013.

RESULTS

Thirty-three publications included antireflux operations and 20 included Heller's myotomy. The publications indicate that the safety and effectiveness of robotic surgery is similar to that of conventional minimally invasive surgery for both operations. The six randomized trials of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic antireflux surgery showed no significant advantages but significantly higher costs for the robotic method. Gastric perforation during non-redo robotic fundoplication occurred in four trials.

CONCLUSIONS

No consistent advantage for robot-assisted antireflux surgery has been demonstrated, and there is an increased cost with current robotic technology. A reported advantage for robotic in reducing the perforation rate during Heller's myotomy for achalasia remains unproven. Gastric perforation during robotic fundoplication may be due to the lack of haptic feedback combined with the superhuman strength of the robot.

Robotic vs. Standard Laparoscopic Technique - What is Better?

Introduction: Laparoscopic surgery is subject to certain limitations that can be a problem when performing complex minimally invasive operations. Robotic surgery was developed precisely to overcome such technical limitations. The question therefore arises whether robotic surgery leads to significantly better results compared with standard laparoscopic surgery.

Methods: Based on comparative systematic reviews and meta-analyses, this paper examines whether the robotic technique when used for abdominal and visceral surgery procedures confers advantages on the patient compared with the standard laparoscopic technique.

Results: Even for demanding visceral surgery procedures, the perioperative complication rate for robotic surgery is not higher than for open or laparoscopic surgical procedures. In cancer cases, the oncological accuracy of robotic resection for gastric, pancreatic, and rectal resection is seen to be adequate. Only the operating time is generally longer than for standard laparoscopic and open procedures. But, on the other hand, in some procedures blood loss is less, conversion rates are lower and hospital stay shorter.

Conclusion: To evaluate the future role of the robotic technique for visceral surgery, high-quality prospective randomized trials are urgently needed.