Efficacy and safety of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopy in hiatal hernia repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis
- VernacularTitle:机器人辅助与传统腹腔镜在食管裂孔疝修补术中疗效和安全性比较的系统评价与Meta分析
- Author:
Yaping WANG
1
,
2
;
Changhao QUE
1
,
2
;
Keyong LI
1
,
2
;
Zhibo YE
2
;
Dacheng JIN
2
;
Yunjiu GOU
2
Author Information
1. Gansu University of Chinese Medicine, Lanzhou, 730000, P. R. China
2. Gansu Clinical Medical Research Center for Thoracic Diseases, Lanzhou, 730000, P. R. China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Hiatal hernia;
robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery;
conventional laparoscopic surgery;
clinical efficacy;
safety;
systematic review/meta-analysis
- From:
Chinese Journal of Clinical Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
2026;33(06):957-963
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RAS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) in hiatal hernia repair. Methods PubMed, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Web of Science, VIP, and Wanfang databases were searched to collect literature comparing the efficacy and safety of RAS and CLS for hiatal hernia repair published from their inception to November 7, 2023. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies, and RevMan 5.4.1 software was used for meta-analysis. Results A total of 15 retrospective cohort studies with 18239 patients were finally included. The NOS scores of the included literature were all ≥7 points. Meta-analysis results showed that RAS was superior to CLS in terms of postoperative complications as the primary outcome [OR=0.56, 95%CI (0.42, 0.77), P<0.01]. There was no statistical difference between the two methods in terms of average operation time [MD=−0.74, 95%CI (−12.99, 11.51), P=0.91], average intraoperative blood loss [MD=−24.47, 95%CI (−54.80, 5.87), P=0.11], intraoperative complications [OR=0.76, 95%CI (0.29, 2.01), P=0.58], average postoperative hospital stay [MD=−0.24, 95%CI (−0.75, 0.27), P=0.36], postoperative GERD score [MD=−0.04, 95%CI (−0.41, 0.33), P=0.81], and 30-day readmission rate [OR=0.60, 95%CI (0.30, 1.20), P=0.15]. The cost of CLS surgery was less than that of RAS [SMD=1.59, 95%CI (1.16, 2.01), P<0.01]. Conclusion RAS has comparable efficacy and safety to CLS in hiatus hernia repair.
