A Meta-analysis of Da Vinci Robotic-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Nissen Fundoplication for Adult Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Xun Yangqin,Liu Rong,Yao Liang,Guo Tiankang,Li Meixuan,Li Huijuan,Ling Juan,Lu Cuncun,Yan Peijing,Yang Kehu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-6899.2018.05.002
2018-01-01
Abstract:Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of da Vinci robotic-assisted Nissen fundoplication (RAF) versus conventional laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (CLF) for adult gastroesophageal reflux disease through Meta-analysis.Methods PubMed,EMbase,Cochrane Library,Web of science,CNKI,WanFang Data and CBM databases were systematically researched from their inception to Jun.2018.We also hand searched the references lists of studies identified.We selected randomized controlled trials and cohort studies on the comparison of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (RAF vs CLF) for adult gastroesophageal reflux disease.After two researchers independently screen literature,extract available data and evaluate quality studies from the included studies,we performed meta-analysis by Stata/SE 12.Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic.Results 11 studies were included in the meta-analysis,in which 267 patients were in the RAF group and 416 patients were in the CLF group.The meta-analysis results indicated:compared to CLF,RAF was associated with longer estimated operative time (WMD =28.83,95% CI:12.89-44.76,P < 0.05) and higher cost (P < 0.05);However,there were no statistical difference between two groups in perioperative complications,intraoperative conversion rate,pneumothorax,postoperative dysphagia,reoperation and length of hospital stay (P > 0.05).Conclusions This meta-analysis indicated that it was effective and safe for RAF in the treatment of adult gastroesophageal reflux disease.However,due to the longer operative time and higher operative cost of RAF,it was limited in clinical practice.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?