Clinical effects of robot-assisted esophageal hiatal hernia repair and laparoscopic esophageal hiatal hernia repair: a retrospective comparative study.
10.3760/cma.j.cn112139-20230128-00037
- Author:
Maimaitiaili MAIMAITIMING
1
;
Duolikun YASHENG
1
;
Yierxiatijiang AINIWAER
2
;
Y L LI
1
;
Aikebaier AILI
1
;
J WANG
1
;
Ke LIMU
1
Author Information
1. Department of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Hernias and Abdominal Wall Surgery, People's Hospital of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Xinjiang Clinical Research Center for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Bariatric Metabolic Surgery, Research Institute of General and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Urumqi 830001, China.
2. Graduate School, Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi 830054, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH:
Male;
Female;
Humans;
Hernia, Hiatal/complications*;
Retrospective Studies;
Robotics;
Herniorrhaphy/methods*;
Quality of Life;
Laparoscopy/methods*;
Recurrence;
Fundoplication/methods*
- From:
Chinese Journal of Surgery
2023;61(6):498-502
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective: To analyze the short-term clinical effects of robot-assisted and laparoscopic repair of the hiatal hernia. Methods: The clinical data of 56 patients underwent minimally invasive hiatal hernia repair from January 2021 to January 2022 in the Department of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Hernias and Abdominal Wall Surgery, People's Hospital of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region were retrospectively analyzed. There were 32 males and 24 females, aging (59.7±10.7) years (range: 28 to 75 years). All patients were divided into laparoscopy group (n=27) and robot group (n=29) according to surgical procedures. Perioperative conditions, hospital stay, and improvement in symptoms before and after surgery were compared between the two groups by the t test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test and χ2 test. Results: All surgical procedures were successfully completed, without conversion to laparotomy or change in operation mode. There were no serious complications related to the operation. The intraoperative blood loss of the robot group was less than that of the laparoscopic group (M (IQR)): (20 (110) ml vs. 40 (80) ml, Z=-4.098, P<0.01). The operation time ((111.7±33.6) minutes vs. (120.4±35.0) minutes, t=-0.943, P=0.350) and hospitalization time ((3.9±1.4) days vs. (4.7±1.9) days, t=-1.980, P=0.053) of the robot group and the laparoscopic group were similar. Follow-up for 12 months after the operation showed no postoperative complications and recurrence. The score of the health-related quality of life questionnaire for gastroesophageal reflux disease in the robot group decreased from 10.8±2.8 before the operation to 6.5±0.6 after the operation, and that in the laparoscopic group decreased from 10.6±2.1 before the operation to 6.3±0.6 after the operation. There was no difference in the influence of different surgical methods on the change in score (t=0.030,P=0.976). Conclusion: Compared with laparoscopic repair of the hiatal hernia, robot-assisted hiatal hernia repair has the advantages of less bleeding, rapid postoperative recovery and good short-term effect.
