A systematic review of robot-assisted anti-reflux surgery to examine reporting standards
Marc M. Huttman,Harry F. Robertson,Alexander N. Smith,Sarah E. Biggs,Ffion Dewi,Lauren K. Dixon,Emily N. Kirkham,Conor S. Jones,Jozel Ramirez,Darren L. Scroggie,Benjamin E. Zucker,Samir Pathak,Natalie S. Blencowe,Barry G. Main,Jane M. Blazeby,Ben Zucker,Sarah Dawson,Abi Vallance,Aimee Wilkinson,Amber Young,Annabel Jones,Aya Abbas,Benedict Turner,Charlie Thomas,Christin Hoffmann,David Henshall,Eleanor Boden,Emma Gull,Emma Sewart,Fergus Wood,Francesca Loro,Freya Hollowood,George E. Fowler,George Higginbotham,Grace Sellers,Ioan Hughes,Ishita Handa,Jonathan Rees,Lorna Leandro,Louisa Paynter,Lucy Huppler,Lysander Gourbault,Manuk Wijeyaratne,Max Dewhurst,Max Shah,Miraen Kiandee,Mo Dada,Oliver Brewster,Pat Lok,Rahul Winayak,Reesha Ranat,Rhiannon Macefield,Ruby Lawrence,Ryan Millar,Sam Lawday,Sanjush Dalmia,Sian Cousins,Sophie Rozwadowski,Tanya Robinson,Teresa Perra,Tjun Wei Leow,Tom Brankin-Frisby,Will Baker,William Hurst,Ysabelle Embury Young,Christin Hoffman,Hollie S. Richards,James Olivier,Keng Siang Lee,Rory Purves,RoboSurg collaborative group
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-022-01453-2
2022-09-09
Journal of Robotic Surgery
Abstract:Robot-assisted anti-reflux surgery (RA-ARS) is increasingly being used to treat refractory gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. The IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term follow up) Collaboration's framework aims to improve the evaluation of surgical innovation, but the extent to which the evolution of RA-ARS has followed this model is unclear. This study aims to evaluate the standard to which RA-ARS has been reported during its evolution, in relation to the IDEAL framework. A systematic review from inception to June 2020 was undertaken to identify all primary English language studies pertaining to RA-ARS. Studies of paraoesophageal or giant hernias were excluded. Data extraction was informed by IDEAL guidelines and summarised by narrative synthesis. Twenty-three studies were included: two case reports, five case series, ten cohort studies and six randomised controlled trials. The majority were single-centre studies comparing RA-ARS and laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Eleven (48%) studies reported patient selection criteria, with high variability between studies. Few studies reported conflicts of interest (30%), funding arrangements (26%), or surgeons' prior robotic experience (13%). Outcome reporting was heterogeneous; 157 distinct outcomes were identified. No single outcome was reported in all studies.The under-reporting of important aspects of study design and high degree of outcome heterogeneity impedes the ability to draw meaningful conclusions from the body of evidence. There is a need for further well-designed prospective studies and randomised trials, alongside agreement about outcome selection, measurement and reporting for future RA-ARS studies.