Robotics vs Laparoscopy in Foregut Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Analyzing Hiatal Hernia Repair and Heller Myotomy

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery remains the mainstay of treating foregut pathologies. Several studies have shown improved outcomes with the robotic approach. A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic hiatal hernia repairs (HHR) and Heller myotomy (HM) repairs is needed. STUDY DESIGN: PubMed, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases were searched for studies published between January 2010 and November 2022. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions tool. Assessed outcomes included intra- and postoperative outcomes. We pooled the dichotomous data using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model to report odds ratio (OR) and 95% CIs and continuous data to report mean difference and 95% CIs. RESULTS: Twenty-two comparative studies enrolling 196,339 patients were included. Thirteen (13,426 robotic and 168,335 laparoscopic patients) studies assessed HHR outcomes, whereas 9 (2,384 robotic and 12,225 laparoscopic patients) assessed HM outcomes. Robotic HHR had a nonsignificantly shorter length of hospital stay (LOS) (mean difference −0.41, 95% CI −0.87 to −0.05), fewer conversions to open (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.49), and lower morbidity rates (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.23). Robotic HM led to significantly fewer esophageal perforations (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.83), reinterventions (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.47) a nonsignificantly shorter LOS (mean difference −0.31, 95% CI −0.62 to 0.00). Both robotic HM and HHR had significantly longer operative times. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic and robotic HHR and HM repairs have similar safety profiles and perioperative outcomes. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to compare the 2 methods, given the low-to-moderate quality of included studies.