Evidence Hub

OA10.4. Clinical Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Transoral Incisionless Fundoplication Versus Robotic Fundoplication for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Associated With Small Hiatal hernias

M. Harrison, Misho Hubka

Diseases of the esophagus, 2026

76 participants

Abstract

Benign Disease: Gastro-Esophageal Reflux and Hiatal Hernia

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a prevalent gastrointestinal disorder that often results from altered gastroesophageal junction anatomy and can result in high symptom burdens for patients. While traditional fundoplication is the gold-standard surgical intervention, transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) has emerged as a minimally invasive endoscopic alternative. This study aimed to compare the short- and mid-term outcomes of TIF versus robotic hiatal hernia repair (RoboHH) in patients eligible for TIF.

A retrospective cohort study analyzed 76 patients with pH-confirmed GERD and hiatal hernias less than 2 cm. Preoperative assessments included manometry, pH study, esophagram, and endoscopy. Postoperative follow-up at 3 and 12 months included clinical assessment and esophagram. Statistical analysis compared demographic, preoperative, perioperative, and clinical outcomes, including symptomatic improvement, recurrence, and reintervention rates.

48 patients underwent TIF and 27 underwent RoboHH. Baseline patient characteristics and preoperative hiatal hernia sizes were comparable between TIF and RoboHH groups. Operative time was significantly shorter for TIF (67 vs. 128 minutes, p<0.001), and TIF was associated with a lower rate of postoperative admission (13% vs. 100%, p<0.001). At 3 months, symptomatic improvement was similar (80% TIF vs. 85% RoboHH, p=0.078). However, by 1 year, RoboHH demonstrated…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 76 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free