Laparoendoscopic Single-Site (LESS) versus Robotic “Redo” Hiatal Hernia Repair with Fundoplication: Which Approach is Better?

Abstract

Only a small percentage of patients fail laparoscopic fundoplications undertaken for gastroesophageal reflux disease. But because many laparoscopic fundoplications have been undertaken, surgeons frequently encounter patients in need of “redo” operations. This study was undertaken to evaluate the robotic approach versus laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) approach for redo fundoplications. With an Institutional Review Board approval, 64 patients undergoing LESS (n = 32) or robotic (n = 32) redo antireflux operations were prospectively followed up. Data are presented as median (mean + SD). For LESS versus robotic redo operations, the operative duration was 145 (143 ± 33.5) versus 196 (208 ± 76.7) minutes ( P < 0.01), estimated blood loss was 50 (80 ± 92.1) versus 20 (43 ± 57.1) mL ( P = 0.07), and length of stay was 1 (3 ± 5.4) versus 1 (2 ± 1.9) day ( P = 0.57); 1 LESS operation was converted to “open.” Operative duration was longer for men ( P = 0.01). Postoperative complications were not more frequent after Nissen (n = 36) or Toupet (n = 28) fundoplication, regardless of the approach. When matched by BMI, operative duration was prolonged by a large Type I to IV hiatal hernia ( P = 0.01). Symptoms improved dramatically and were similar with both approaches, and patient satisfaction was high. Robotic redo antireflux operations take longer than LESS operations. LESS and robotic redo antireflux operations are both safe and offer significant and similar amelioration of symptoms after failed fundoplications.