Evidence Hub

A literature review of the outcomes after robot-assisted laparoscopic and conventional laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for gastro-esophageal reflux disease in children

Hambraeus M, Arnbjörnsson E, Anderberg M

The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS, 2013

174 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted surgery is a promising technical innovation. Given the similarities between laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery it is unlikely that randomized controlled trials would be conducted to disclose any differences between these two technical instruments. Thus, skepticism remains due to lack of any definitive conclusions in the literature.

AIMS: The aim of the study was to disclose any difference in outcome after robot-assisted (RNF) versus conventional laparoscopic (LNF) Nissen fundoplication for gastro-esophageal reflux disease in children.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature review was carried out. Only studies comparing the two modalities were included. Operative time, duration of hospital stay, 30 days morbidity, mortality, conversion, recurrence and complication rates were analyzed. Review Manager 5.1.6 software, from the Cochrane library, was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS: Three case series fulfilled the criteria for inclusion in this review. Data on 174 children were identified; 89 were operated on using the computer-assisted technology and 85 controls were operated on using the conventional laparoscopic technique. Data showed no significant difference between these two modalities.

DISCUSSION: This literature review demonstrates no significant difference between patients operated on with robot-assisted surgery and those undergoing conventional laparoscopic surgery regarding the parameters studied.

CONCLUSION: The robot-assisted Nissen…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 174 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