Evidence Hub

Meta analysis of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic fundoplication in children

Cundy TP, Harling L, Marcus HJ, Athanasiou T, Darzi AW

Journal of pediatric surgery, 2014

297 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive fundoplication may be performed using either a robot-assisted (RF) or conventional laparoscopic (LF) technique. Evidence comparing RF and LF in children remains unclear. This study aims to elucidate the comparative safety and efficacy of RF versus LF by systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS: Comparative studies investigating RF versus LF in children were identified from multiple electronic literature databases. Meta-analysis was performed using random effects modeling. Safety parameters investigated were post-operative morbidity and intra-operative conversions. Efficacy outcomes of interest were operative success, re-operation, post-operative complications, length of hospital stay (LOS), total operating time (OT), analgesia requirement, and cost.

RESULTS: Six observational studies met inclusion criteria, reporting outcomes of 297 children. No randomized controlled trials were identified. Pooled analysis determined no statistically significant differences between RF and LF for conversions, OT, LOS, and post-operative complications. There was no standardized follow up beyond the early post-operative period to enable data synthesis for remaining outcomes of interest. Limited evidence indicates higher costs with RF.

CONCLUSIONS: Safety and short-term efficacy seem comparable between RF and LF in children. There is insufficient evidence to assess comparative effectiveness for many important procedure specific outcome measures. Higher quality…

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: 297 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