medigraphic.com
SPANISH

Acta Médica Grupo Angeles

Órgano Oficial del Hospital Angeles Health System
  • Contents
  • View Archive
  • Information
    • General Information        
    • Directory
  • Publish
    • Instructions for authors        
    • Send manuscript
    • Names and affiliations of the Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • About us
    • Data sharing policy
    • Stated aims and scope
  • medigraphic.com
    • Home
    • Journals index            
    • Register / Login
  • Mi perfil

2025, Number 5

<< Back Next >>

Acta Med 2025; 23 (5)

Robotic approach, a viable option in refunduplications?

Martínez CE, Moreno V, González J, Padilla F, Bracho E, Luján K, Solórzano JJ, Galeana F, Aguirre M, Kuri J
Full text How to cite this article 10.35366/121179

DOI

DOI: 10.35366/121179
URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.35366/121179

Language: Spanish
References: 12
Page: 434-438
PDF size: 200.19 Kb.


Key words:

refunduplication, morbidity, Nissen fundoplication, gastroesophageal reflux disease.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: the incidence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in the Mexican population is high. Antireflux surgery is one of the main therapeutic options. Robotic surgery could represent a turning point in the successful management of GERD. However, there is insufficient evidence in the literature regarding the advantages and disadvantages of robotic re-fundoplication. The most recent reviews on this subject were published more than 10 years ago. During this time, both the learning curve and robotic surgical techniques have evolved, making it relevant to assess the current role of robotic surgery in complex procedures such as re-fundoplication. Material and methods: a retrospective comparison was conducted between patients who underwent laparoscopic re-fundoplication and those treated with robotic-assisted re-fundoplication. This was a descriptive, retrospective, and observational study. Results: operative time was significantly longer in the robotic group (mean difference 47 min, p = 0.014). No significant differences were found regarding postoperative pain, nausea, bleeding, or length of hospital stay. There were no cases of regurgitation, vomiting, or mortality. Conclusions: although no statistically significant differences were found between robotic and laparoscopic approaches in re-fundoplication, from the perspective of the experienced surgeon, robotic surgery provides superior technical capabilities to address the challenges inherent in such a complex procedure. The enhanced precision and range of motion offered by the robotic platform may facilitate a more effective resolution of intraoperative difficulties compared to conventional laparoscopy.


REFERENCES

  1. Remes-Troche JM, Rodríguez-González B, Valdovinos-Díaz MA. La enfermedad por reflujo gastroesofágico en México. Revisión sistemática. Rev Gastroenterol Mex. 2006; 71 (2): 151-159.

  2. Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. Guía de Práctica Clínica Diagnóstico y Tratamiento de la Dispepsia Funcional. México: IMSS; 2009.

  3. Morala MGI, Reoyo PJF, León MR, Palomo LA, Rodríguez SS, Seco GJL. Fundoplicatura de Nissen laparoscópica: resultados y factores pronósticos. Rev Gastroenterol Mex. 2012;77 (1) : 15-25.

  4. Hunter JG, Smith CD, Branum GD, Waring JP, Trus TL, Cornwell M, Galloway K. Laparoscopic fundoplication failures: patterns of failure and response to fundoplication revision. Ann Surg. 1999; 230(4): 595-604; discussion 604-606.

  5. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009; 250 (2): 187-196.

  6. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004; 240 (2): 205-213.

  7. Huerta-Iga FM, Tamayo-de la Cuesta JL, Noble-Lugo A, Remes-Troche JM, Valdovinos-Díaz MA, Carmona-Sánchez RI et al. Consenso Mexicano de enfermedad por relujo gastroesofágico. Parte I [The Mexican consensus on gastroesophageal reflux disease. Part I]. Rev Gastroenterol Mex. 2012; 77 (4): 193-213. Spanish. doi: 10.1016/j.rgmx.2012.10.002.

  8. Grover BT, Kothari SN. Reoperative antireflux surgery. Surg Clin North Am. 2015; 95 (3): 629-640. doi: 10.1016/j.suc.2015.02.014. doi: 10.1016/j.suc.2015.02.014.

  9. Vertaldi S, D'Amore A, Manigrasso M, Anoldo P, Chini A, Maione F et al. Robotic surgery and functional esophageal disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pers Med. 2023; 13 (2): 231. doi:10.3390/jpm13020231.

  10. Oter V, Bostanci E, Bal A, Aziret M, Karaman K, Ercan M. Gastroozefageal reflü hastaliginda robotik fundoplikasyona karsi laparoskopik Nissen fundoplikasyonu. Kocaeli Med J. 2020; 9; 3: 56-60.

  11. Lang F, Huber A, Kowalewski KF, Kenngott HG, Billmann F, Billeter AT, Fischer L et al. Randomized controlled trial of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic fundoplication: 12 years follow-up. Surg Endosc. 2022; 36 (8): 5627-5634.

  12. Mertens AC, Tolboom RC, Zavrtanik H, Draaisma WA, Broeders IAMJ. Morbidity and mortality in complex robot-assisted hiatal hernia surgery: 7-year experience in a high-volume center. Surg Endosc. 2019; 33 (7): 2152-2161. doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6494-4.




Table 1
Table 2

2020     |     www.medigraphic.com

Mi perfil

C?MO CITAR (Vancouver)

Acta Med. 2025;23