Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusion

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Beninca G, Garrone C, Rebecchi F, Giaccone C, Morino M (2003) Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Preliminary results at our Center. Chir Ital 3: 321–331

    Google Scholar 

  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: 87–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 1467–1477

    Google Scholar 

  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: 918–923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 475–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dakin GF, Gagner M (2003) Comparison of laparoscopic skills performance between standard instruments and two surgical robotic systems. Surg Endosc 4: 574–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dallemagne B, Weerts JM, Jehaes C, Markiewicz S, Lombard R (1991) Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication: preliminary report. Surg Laparosc Endosc 3: 138–143

    Google Scholar 

  8. Desai MM, Gill IS, Kaouk JH, Matin SF, Sung GT, Bravo EL (2002) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic adrenalectomy. Urology 6: 1104–1107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Geagea T (1991) Laparoscopic Nissen’s fundoplication: preliminary report on ten cases. Surg Endosc 4: 170–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 777–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gutt CN, Markus B, Kim ZG, Meininger D, Brinkmann L, Heller K (2002) Early experiences of robotic surgery in children. Surg Endosc 7: 1083–1086

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gutt CN, Oniu T, Mehrabi A, Kashfi A, Schemmer P, Buchler MW (2004) Robot-assisted abdominal surgery. Br J Surg 11: 1390–1397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gutt CN, Bintintan VV, Koninger J, Muller-Stich BP, Reiter M, Buchler MW (2006) Robotic-assisted transhiatal esophagectomy. Langenbecks Arch Surg 391: 428–434

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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: 286–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 1187–1191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 426–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 1595–1599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Melvin WS, Needleman BJ, Krause KR, Schneider C, Ellison EC (2002) Computer-enhanced vs. standard laparoscopic antireflux surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 1: 11–15

    Google Scholar 

  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: 1790–1792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 553–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 1050–1054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 811–813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 41–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Talamini MA, Chapman S, Horgan S, Melvin WS (2003) A prospective analysis of 211 robotic-assisted surgical procedures. Surg Endosc 10: 1521–1524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 396–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Vibert E, Denet C, Gayet B (2003) Major digestive surgery using a remote-controlled robot: the next revolution. Arch Surg 9: 1002–1006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Weber PA, Merola S, Wasielewski A, Ballantyne GH (2002) Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic right and sigmoid colectomies for benign disease. Dis Colon Rectum 12: 1689–1694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 411–416

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The present study was conducted within the setting of the “Research training group 1126: Intelligent Surgery -Development of new computer-based methods for the future workplace in surgery” founded by the German Research Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. N. Gutt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Müller-Stich, B.P., Reiter, M.A., Wente, M.N. et al. Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic fundoplication: short-term outcome of a pilot randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 21, 1800–1805 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9268-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9268-y

Keywords

Navigation