Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic fundoplication: short-term outcome of a pilot randomized controlled trial
- B. P. Müller-StichAffiliated withDepartment of Surgery, University of Heidelberg
- , M. A. ReiterAffiliated withDepartment of Surgery, University of Heidelberg
- , M. N. WenteAffiliated withDepartment of Surgery, University of Heidelberg
- , V. V. BintintanAffiliated withDepartment of Surgery, 1st Surgical Clinic, “Iuliu Hatieganu,”, University of Medicine and Pharmacy
- , J. KöningerAffiliated withDepartment of Surgery, University of Heidelberg
- , M. W. BüchlerAffiliated withDepartment of Surgery, University of Heidelberg
- , C. N. GuttAffiliated withDepartment of Surgery, University of Heidelberg Email author
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Robotic technology represents the latest development in minimally-invasive surgery. Nevertheless, robotic-assisted surgery seems to have specific disadvantages such as an increase in costs and prolongation of operative time. A general clinical implementation of the technique would only be justified if a relevant improvement in outcome could be demonstrated. This is also true for laparoscopic fundoplication. The present study was designed to compare robotic-assisted (RALF) and conventional laparoscopic fundoplication (CLF) with the focus on operative time, costs und perioperative outcome.
Forty patients with gastro-esophageal reflux disease were randomized to either RALF by use of the daVinci® Surgical System or CLF. Nissen fundoplication was the standard anti-reflux procedure. Peri-operative data such as length of operative procedure, intra-and postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, overall costs and symptomatic short-term outcome were compared.
The total operative time was shorter for RALF compared to CLF (88 vs. 102 min; p = 0.033) consisting of a longer set-up (23 vs. 20 min; p = 0.050) but a shorter effective operative time (65 vs. 82 min; p = 0.006). Intraoperative complications included one pneumothorax and two technical problems in the RALF group and two bleedings in the CLF group. There were no conversions to an open approach. Mean length of hospital stay (2.8 vs. 3.3 days; p = 0.086) and symptomatic outcome thirty days postoperatively (10% vs. 15% with ongoing PPI therapy; p = 1.0 and 25% vs. 20% with persisting mild dysphagia; p = 1.0) was similar in both groups. Costs were higher for RALF than for CLF (€ 3244 vs. € 2743, p = 0.003).
In comparison with CLF, operative time can be shorter for RALF if performed by an experienced team. However, costs are higher and short-term outcome is similar. Thus, RALF can not be favoured over CLF regarding perioperative outcome.
KeywordsRobotic surgery Laparoscopic fundoplication Gastroesophageal reflux disease Laparoscopy Randomized controlled trial
- Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic fundoplication: short-term outcome of a pilot randomized controlled trial
Volume 21, Issue 10 , pp 1800-1805
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- Robotic surgery
- Laparoscopic fundoplication
- Gastroesophageal reflux disease
- Randomized controlled trial
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
- 2. Department of Surgery, 1st Surgical Clinic, “Iuliu Hatieganu,”, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania