Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 21, Issue 10, pp 1800–1805 | Cite as

Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic fundoplication: short-term outcome of a pilot randomized controlled trial

  • B. P. Müller-Stich
  • M. A. Reiter
  • M. N. Wente
  • V. V. Bintintan
  • J. Köninger
  • M. W. Büchler
  • C. N. Gutt



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.


Robotic surgery Laparoscopic fundoplication Gastroesophageal reflux disease Laparoscopy Randomized controlled trial 


  1. 1.
    Beninca G, Garrone C, Rebecchi F, Giaccone C, Morino M (2003) Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Preliminary results at our Center. Chir Ital 3: 321–331Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berguer R, Smith W (2006) An ergonomic comparison of robotic and laparoscopic technique: the influence of surgeon experience and task complexity. J Surg Res 1: 87–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cadiere GB, Himpens J, Germay O, Izizaw R, Degueldre M, Vandromme J, Capelluto E, Bruyns J (2001) Feasibility of robotic laparoscopic surgery: 146 cases. World J Surg 11: 1467–1477Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cadiere GB, Himpens J, Vertruyen M, Bruyns J, Germay O, Leman G, Izizaw R (2001) Evaluation of telesurgical (robotic) NISSEN fundoplication. Surg Endosc 9: 918–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chitwood WR Jr, Nifong LW, Chapman WH, Felger JE, Bailey BM, Ballint T, Mendleson KG, Kim VB, Young JA, Albrecht RA (2001) Robotic surgical training in an academic institution. Ann Surg 4: 475–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dakin GF, Gagner M (2003) Comparison of laparoscopic skills performance between standard instruments and two surgical robotic systems. Surg Endosc 4: 574–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dallemagne B, Weerts JM, Jehaes C, Markiewicz S, Lombard R (1991) Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication: preliminary report. Surg Laparosc Endosc 3: 138–143Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Desai MM, Gill IS, Kaouk JH, Matin SF, Sung GT, Bravo EL (2002) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic adrenalectomy. Urology 6: 1104–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Geagea T (1991) Laparoscopic Nissen’s fundoplication: preliminary report on ten cases. Surg Endosc 4: 170–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Angelini M, Sbrana F, Cecconi S, Balestracci T, Caravaglios G (2003) Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg 7: 777–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gutt CN, Markus B, Kim ZG, Meininger D, Brinkmann L, Heller K (2002) Early experiences of robotic surgery in children. Surg Endosc 7: 1083–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gutt CN, Oniu T, Mehrabi A, Kashfi A, Schemmer P, Buchler MW (2004) Robot-assisted abdominal surgery. Br J Surg 11: 1390–1397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gutt CN, Bintintan VV, Koninger J, Muller-Stich BP, Reiter M, Buchler MW (2006) Robotic-assisted transhiatal esophagectomy. Langenbecks Arch Surg 391: 428–434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hanisch E, Markus B, Gutt C, Schmandra TC, Encke A (2001) Robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy and fundoplication–initial experiences with the Da Vinci system. Chirurg 3: 286–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hashizume M, Shimada M, Tomikawa M, Ikeda Y, Takahashi I, Abe R, Koga F, Gotoh N, Konishi K, Maehara S, Sugimachi K (2002) Early experiences of endoscopic procedures in general surgery assisted by a computer-enhanced surgical system. Surg Endosc 8: 1187–1191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heemskerk J, van Dam R, van Gemert WG, Beets GL, Greve JW, Jacobs MJ, Bouvy ND (2005) First results after introduction of the four-armed da Vinci Surgical System in fully robotic laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Dig Surg 6: 426–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hubens G, Coveliers H, Balliu L, Ruppert M, Vaneerdeweg W (2003) A performance study comparing manual and robotically assisted laparoscopic surgery using the da Vinci system. Surg Endosc 10: 1595–1599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kulich KR, Malfertheiner P, Madisch A, Labenz J, Bayerdorffer E, Miehlke S, Carlsson J, Wiklund IK (2003) Psychometric validation of the German translation of the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) and Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD) questionnaire in patients with reflux disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1: 62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Melvin WS, Needleman BJ, Krause KR, Schneider C, Ellison EC (2002) Computer-enhanced vs. standard laparoscopic antireflux surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 1: 11–15Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Melvin WS, Needleman BJ, Krause KR, Schneider C, Wolf RK, Michler RE, Ellison EC (2002) Computer-enhanced robotic telesurgery. Initial experience in foregut surgery. Surg Endosc 12: 1790–1792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Morino M, Pellegrino L, Giaccone C, Garrone C, Rebecchi F (2006) Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Br J Surg 5: 553–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nakadi IE, Melot C, Closset J, DeMoor V, Betroune K, Feron P, Lingier P, Gelin M (2006) Evaluation of da Vinci Nissen fundoplication clinical results and cost minimization. World J Surg 6: 1050–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Perez A, Zinner MJ, Ashley SW, Brooks DC, Whang EE (2003) What is the value of telerobotic technology in gastrointestinal surgery? Surg Endosc 5: 811–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ruurda JP, Broeders IA, Simmermacher RP, Borel RI, van Vroonhoven TJ (2002) Feasibility of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery: an evaluation of 35 robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 1: 41–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Talamini MA, Chapman S, Horgan S, Melvin WS (2003) A prospective analysis of 211 robotic-assisted surgical procedures. Surg Endosc 10: 1521–1524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Undre S, Moorthy K, Munz Y, Aggarwal R, Hance J, Rockall T, Darzi A (2004) Robot-assisted laparoscopic Heller cardiomyotomy: preliminary UK results. Dig Surg 5–6: 396–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vibert E, Denet C, Gayet B (2003) Major digestive surgery using a remote-controlled robot: the next revolution. Arch Surg 9: 1002–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Weber PA, Merola S, Wasielewski A, Ballantyne GH (2002) Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic right and sigmoid colectomies for benign disease. Dis Colon Rectum 12: 1689–1694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wykypiel H, Wetscher GJ, Klaus A, Schmid T, Gadenstaetter M, Bodner J, Bodner E (2003) Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial posterior fundoplication with the DaVinci system: initial experiences and technical aspects. Langenbecks Arch Surg 11–12: 411–416Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. P. Müller-Stich
    • 1
  • M. A. Reiter
    • 1
  • M. N. Wente
    • 1
  • V. V. Bintintan
    • 2
  • J. Köninger
    • 1
  • M. W. Büchler
    • 1
  • C. N. Gutt
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  2. 2.Department of Surgery, 1st Surgical Clinic, “Iuliu Hatieganu,”University of Medicine and PharmacyCluj-NapocaRomania

Personalised recommendations