Skip to main content
Log in

Robotic paraesophageal hernia repair: a single-center experience and systematic review

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Robotic Surgery is becoming increasingly used in general surgery. The objective of this study is to evaluate the safety, effectiveness and short-term (less than 1 year) outcomes of Robotic Paraesophageal Hernia (RPEH) Surgery using the DaVinci Surgical Robot system (Intuitive Surgical, CA) in a large community hospital. This is a retrospective cohort study of 28 consecutive patients who underwent robotic paraesophageal hernia repair January 2011–March 2013 in this institution. Data and outcomes collected for analysis include patient demographics, operating times, conversion, complications, mortality and recurrence. The mean age of the patients was 68.7 +/− 12.7 years, 82% were females and the mean BMI was 29 +/− 6.3. The mean operative time, including the robot docking time, was 83.6 + 24 min. The average length of hospital stay (LOS) was 2.8 +/− 1.9 days. There were no conversions to open or laparoscopic procedures. Postoperative complications were noted in 3 patients (10.7%), including one mortality (3.4%). One symptomatic recurrence (3.4%) was noted during the 12-month follow-up period. Robotic Paraesophageal repair is a safe (similar rate of complication and mortality to literature for laparoscopic procedure) and an effective (paraeshopageal hernia repaired without high recurrence) procedure with acceptable complication rates even in older patients with high operative risks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Andujar JJ, Papasavas PK, Birdas T et al (2004) Laparoscopic repair of large paraesophageal hernia is associated with a low incidence of recurrence and reoperation. Surg Endosc 18:444–447

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Oelschlager BK, Petersen RP, Brunt LM et al (2012) Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: defining long-term clinical and anatomic outcomes. J Gastrointest Surg 16(3):453–459

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Stylopoulos N, Gazelle GS, Rattner DW (2002) Paraesophageal hernias: operation or observation? Ann Surg 236(4):492–500

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Nguyen NT, Christie C, Masoomi H et al (2011) Utilization and outcomes of laparoscopic versus open paraesophageal hernia repair. Am Surg 77(10):1353–1357

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ballantyne GH (2002) The pitfalls of laparoscopic surgery: challenges for robotics and telerobotic surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 12(1):1–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Zureikat AH, Moser AJ, Boone BA et al (2013) 250 robotic pancreatic resections: safety and feasibility. Ann Surg 258(4):554–562

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Hyun MH, Lee CH, Kwon YJ et al (2013) Robot versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for cancer by an experienced surgeon: comparisons of surgery, complications, and surgical stress. Ann Surg Oncol 20(4):1258–1265

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gehrig T, Mehrabi A, Fischer L et al (2013) Robotic-assisted paraesophageal hernia repair: a case–control study. Langenbecks Arch Surg 398(5):691–696

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Braumann C, Jacobi CA, Menenakos C et al (2008) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic and thoracoscopic surgery with the da Vinci system: a 4-year experience in a single institution. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 18(3):260–266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Draaisma WA, Gooszen HG, Consten EC, Broeders IA (2008) Mid-term results of robot-assisted laparoscopic repair of large hiatal hernia: a symptomatic and radiological prospective cohort study. Surg Technol Int 17:165–170

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gangopadhyay N, Perrone JM, Soper NJ et al (2006) Outcomes of laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair in elderly and high-risk patients. Surgery 140(4):491–498

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Paul S, Nasar A, Port JL et al (2012) Comparative analysis of diaphragmatic hernia repair outcomes using the nationwide inpatient sample database. Arch Surg 147(7):607–612

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Soper NJ, Teitelbaum EN (2013) Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: current controversies. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 23(5):442–445

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bhayani NH, Kurian AA, Sharata AM et al (2013) Wait only to resuscitate: early surgery for acutely presenting paraesophageal hernias yields better outcomes. Surg Endosc 27(1):267–271

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Parker DM, Rambhajan A, Johanson K et al (2013) Urgent laparoscopic repair of acutely symptomatic PEH is safe and effective. Surg Endosc 27(11):4081–4086

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tolboom RC, Draaisma WA (2016) Broeders IA Evaluation of conventional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic redo hiatal hernia and antireflux surgery: a cohort study. J Robot Surg 10(1):33–39

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Galvani CA, Loebl H, Osuchukwu O, Samamé J, Apel ME, Ghaderi I (2016) Robotic-assisted paraesophageal hernia repair: initial experience at a single institution. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 26(4):290–295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Okrainec A, Ferri LE, Feldman LS, Fried GM (2011) Defining the learning curve in laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: a CUSUM analysis. Surg Endosc 25(4):1083–1087

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Vasudevan V, Reusche R, Wallace H, Kaza S (2016) Clinical outcomes and cost-benefit analysis comparing laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgeries. Surg Endosc 30(12):5490–5493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ryan Reusche.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Author Vasudevan, Reusche, and Nelson, declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author Kaza is a consultant for intuitive surgical.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vasudevan, V., Reusche, R., Nelson, E. et al. Robotic paraesophageal hernia repair: a single-center experience and systematic review. J Robotic Surg 12, 81–86 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0697-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0697-x

Keywords

Navigation