Da Vinci-assisted vs laparoscopic nissen fundoplication for GERD: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on patient-reported outcomes, dysphagia, and long-term failure.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Wajahat Mirza, Mehak Ejaz Khan, Muhammad Uneeb, Hadi Mohammad Khan, Sundus Dadan, Abdul Rafeh Awan, Muhammad Ahmad Nadeem, Hamza Nasir Chatha
{"title":"Da Vinci-assisted vs laparoscopic nissen fundoplication for GERD: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on patient-reported outcomes, dysphagia, and long-term failure.","authors":"Wajahat Mirza, Mehak Ejaz Khan, Muhammad Uneeb, Hadi Mohammad Khan, Sundus Dadan, Abdul Rafeh Awan, Muhammad Ahmad Nadeem, Hamza Nasir Chatha","doi":"10.1007/s11701-025-02869-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The comparative effectiveness of da Vinci robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease remains controversial despite increasing adoption of robotic platforms. Previous meta-analyses have yielded conflicting results regarding patient-centered outcomes and long-term durability. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing da Vinci-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. This review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251139110). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and grey literature sources through August 2025. Primary outcomes included postoperative dysphagia, proton pump inhibitor use, and intraoperative complications. Secondary outcomes encompassed reoperation rates, operative time, length of stay, and conversion to open surgery. Risk ratios and mean differences were calculated using random-effects models. Evidence certainty was assessed using the GRADE methodology. Four randomized controlled trials involving 160 patients (79 robotic, 81 conventional laparoscopic) met the inclusion criteria. No significant differences were observed in early dysphagia (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.45-2.45), postoperative proton pump inhibitor use (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.25-3.79), or intraoperative complications (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.07-2.81). Secondary outcomes showed no differences in reoperation rates (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.40-6.90), length of hospital stay (MD -0.03 days, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.36), or conversion rates (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.19-7.99). Operative time demonstrated substantial heterogeneity; sensitivity analysis revealed significantly longer times with robotics when one outlier study was removed (MD 40.28 min, p < 0.00001). Da Vinci robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication achieve equivalent clinical outcomes with no significant differences in patient-reported outcomes, complications, or long-term effectiveness, while robotic procedures consistently require longer operative times and substantially higher costs without demonstrable clinical benefits. These findings question the routine application of robotic platforms in antireflux surgery until cost-effectiveness and operative efficiency are optimized.</p>","PeriodicalId":47616,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Robotic Surgery","volume":"19 1","pages":"678"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Robotic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-025-02869-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The comparative effectiveness of da Vinci robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease remains controversial despite increasing adoption of robotic platforms. Previous meta-analyses have yielded conflicting results regarding patient-centered outcomes and long-term durability. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing da Vinci-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. This review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251139110). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and grey literature sources through August 2025. Primary outcomes included postoperative dysphagia, proton pump inhibitor use, and intraoperative complications. Secondary outcomes encompassed reoperation rates, operative time, length of stay, and conversion to open surgery. Risk ratios and mean differences were calculated using random-effects models. Evidence certainty was assessed using the GRADE methodology. Four randomized controlled trials involving 160 patients (79 robotic, 81 conventional laparoscopic) met the inclusion criteria. No significant differences were observed in early dysphagia (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.45-2.45), postoperative proton pump inhibitor use (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.25-3.79), or intraoperative complications (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.07-2.81). Secondary outcomes showed no differences in reoperation rates (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.40-6.90), length of hospital stay (MD -0.03 days, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.36), or conversion rates (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.19-7.99). Operative time demonstrated substantial heterogeneity; sensitivity analysis revealed significantly longer times with robotics when one outlier study was removed (MD 40.28 min, p < 0.00001). Da Vinci robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication achieve equivalent clinical outcomes with no significant differences in patient-reported outcomes, complications, or long-term effectiveness, while robotic procedures consistently require longer operative times and substantially higher costs without demonstrable clinical benefits. These findings question the routine application of robotic platforms in antireflux surgery until cost-effectiveness and operative efficiency are optimized.

达芬奇辅助与腹腔镜尼森治疗胃食管反流:对患者报告的结果、吞咽困难和长期失败的随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
尽管越来越多地采用机器人平台,但达芬奇机器人辅助与传统腹腔镜尼森手术治疗胃食管反流病的比较效果仍然存在争议。先前的荟萃分析在以患者为中心的结果和长期持久性方面得出了相互矛盾的结果。我们对随机对照试验进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析,比较了达芬奇辅助与传统腹腔镜尼森底应用。本综述在PROSPERO进行了前瞻性注册(CRD420251139110)。我们检索了MEDLINE、Embase、Cochrane CENTRAL、Web of Science、Scopus、ClinicalTrials.gov、WHO ICTRP和2025年8月之前的灰色文献来源。主要结局包括术后吞咽困难、质子泵抑制剂的使用和术中并发症。次要结果包括再手术率、手术时间、住院时间和转开腹手术。使用随机效应模型计算风险比和平均差异。使用GRADE方法评估证据确定性。四项随机对照试验涉及160例患者(79例机器人,81例传统腹腔镜)符合纳入标准。在早期吞咽困难(RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.45-2.45)、术后质子泵抑制剂使用(RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.25-3.79)或术中并发症(RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.07-2.81)方面均无显著差异。次要结局在再手术率(RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.40-6.90)、住院时间(MD -0.03天,95% CI -0.41 - 0.36)或转换率(RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.19-7.99)方面无差异。手术时间表现出明显的异质性;敏感度分析显示,当一个异常研究被移除时,机器人的使用时间显着延长(MD 40.28 min, p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
8.70%
发文量
145
期刊介绍: The aim of the Journal of Robotic Surgery is to become the leading worldwide journal for publication of articles related to robotic surgery, encompassing surgical simulation and integrated imaging techniques. The journal provides a centralized, focused resource for physicians wishing to publish their experience or those wishing to avail themselves of the most up-to-date findings.The journal reports on advance in a wide range of surgical specialties including adult and pediatric urology, general surgery, cardiac surgery, gynecology, ENT, orthopedics and neurosurgery.The use of robotics in surgery is broad-based and will undoubtedly expand over the next decade as new technical innovations and techniques increase the applicability of its use. The journal intends to capture this trend as it develops.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信