Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 33, Issue 7, pp 2152–2161 | Cite as

Morbidity and mortality in complex robot-assisted hiatal hernia surgery: 7-year experience in a high-volume center

  • Alexander C. Mertens
  • Rob C. Tolboom
  • Hana Zavrtanik
  • Werner A. Draaisma
  • Ivo A. M. J. BroedersEmail author
Article
  • 173 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

Published data regarding robot-assisted hiatal hernia repair are mainly limited to small cohorts. This study aimed to provide information on the morbidity and mortality of robot-assisted complex hiatal hernia repair and redo anti-reflux surgery in a high-volume center.

Materials and methods

All patients that underwent robot-assisted hiatal hernia repair, redo hiatal hernia repair, and anti-reflux surgery between 2011 and 2017 at the Meander Medical Centre, Amersfoort, the Netherlands were evaluated. Primary endpoints were 30-day morbidity and mortality. Major complications were defined as Clavien–Dindo ≥ IIIb.

Results

Primary surgery 211 primary surgeries were performed by two surgeons. The median age was 67 (IQR 58–73) years. 84.4% of patients had a type III or IV hernia (10.9% Type I; 1.4% Type II; 45.5% Type III; 38.9% Type IV, 1.4% no herniation). In 3.3% of procedures, conversion was required. 17.1% of patients experienced complications. The incidence of major complications was 5.2%. Ten patients (4.7%) were readmitted within 30 days. Symptomatic early recurrence occurred in two patients (0.9%). The 30-day mortality was 0.9%. Redo surgery 151 redo procedures were performed by two surgeons. The median age was 60 (IQR 51–68) years. In 2.0%, the procedure was converted. The overall incidence of complications was 10.6%, while the incidence of major complications was 2.6%. Three patients (2.0%) were readmitted within 30 days. One patient (0.7%) experienced symptomatic early recurrence. No patients died in the 30-day postoperative period.

Conclusions

This study provides valuable information on robot-assisted laparoscopic repair of primary or recurrent hiatal hernia and anti-reflux surgery for both patient and surgeon. Serious morbidity of 5.2% in primary surgery and 2.6% in redo surgery, in this large series with a high surgeon caseload, has to be outweighed by the gain in quality of life or relief of serious medical implications of hiatal hernia when counseling for surgical intervention.

Keywords

Hiatal hernia Reflux Anti-reflux Surgery Redo Robotics 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Dr. Broeders reports personal fees from Johnson & Johnson and Intuitive Surgical. Drs. Mertens, Tolboom, Zavrtanik, and Dr. Draaisma have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Robinson B, Dunst CM, Cassera MA et al (2015) 20 years later: laparoscopic fundoplication durability. Surg Endosc 29(9):2520–2524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Luketich JD, Nason KS, Christie NA et al (2010) Outcomes after a decade of laparoscopic giant paraesophageal hernia repair. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 139(2):395–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Banki F, Kaushik C, Roife D et al (2017) Laparoscopic repair of large hiatal hernia without the need for esophageal lengthening with low morbidity and rare symptomatic recurrence. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 29(3):418–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hanly EJ, Talamini MA (2004 Oct) Robotic abdominal surgery. Am J Surg 188(4A Suppl):19S–26SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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):260–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Broeders IAMJ. Robotics (2014) The next step? Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 28(1):225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gehrig T, Mehrabi A, Fischer L et al (2013) Robotic-assisted paraesophageal hernia repair—a case–control study. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 398(5):691–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brenkman HJF, Parry K, van Hillegersberg R et al (2016) Robot-assisted laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair: promising anatomical and functional results. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 26(6):465–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tolboom RC, Draaisma WA, Broeders IAMJ (2016) Evaluation of conventional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic redo hiatal hernia and antireflux surgery: a cohort study. J Robot Surg 10(1):33–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Müller-Stich BP, Reiter MA, Mehrabi A et al (2009) No relevant difference in quality of life and functional outcome at 12 months’ follow-up-a randomised controlled trial comparing robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 394(3):441–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Falkenback D, Lehane CW, Lord RVN (2015) Robot-assisted oesophageal and gastric surgery for benign disease: antireflux operations and Heller’s myotomy. ANZ J Surg 85(3):113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Galvani CA, Loebl H, Osuchukwu O et al (2016) Robotic-assisted paraesophageal hernia repair: initial experience at a single institution. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 26(4):290–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Draaisma W, Gooszen H, Consten E et al (2008) Mid-term results of robot-assisted laparoscopic repair of large hiatal hernia: a symptomatic and radiological prospective cohort study. Surg Technol Int 17:165–170Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kohn K, Price P, Demeester D et al (2013) SAGES guidelines for the management of hiatal hernia. Surg Endosc Interv Tech 27(12):4409–4428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Broeders JA, Roks DJ, Ali UA et al (2013) Laparoscopic anterior 180-degree versus nissen fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Ann Surg 257(5):850–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Broeders JAJL, Mauritz FA, Ahmed Ali U et al (2010) Systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic Nissen (posterior total) versus Toupet (posterior partial) fundoplication for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Br J Surg 97(9):1318–1330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Broeders JA, Broeders EA, Watson DI et al (2013) Objective outcomes 14 years after laparoscopic anterior 180-degree partial versus nissen fundoplication. Ann Surg 258(2):233–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Du X, Hu Z, Yan C et al (2016) A meta-analysis of long follow-up outcomes of laparoscopic Nissen (total) versus Toupet (270°) fundoplication for gastro-esophageal reflux disease based on randomized controlled trials in adults. BMC Gastroenterol 16(1):88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee CM, Park J-M, Lee HH et al (2018) Nationwide survey of partial fundoplication in Korea: comparison with total fundoplication. Ann Surg Treat Res Jun 1;94(6):298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Du X, Wu J-M, Hu Z-W et al (2017) Laparoscopic Nissen (total) versus anterior 180° fundoplication for gastro-esophageal reflux disease: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Medicine (Baltimore) 96(37):e8085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tolboom R, Broeders I, Draaisma W (2015) Robot-assisted laparoscopic hiatal hernia and antireflux surgery. J Surg Oncol 112(3):266–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Oor JE, Koetje JH, Roks DJ et al (2016) Laparoscopic Hiatal Hernia repair in the elderly patient. World J Surg 40(6):1404–1411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Castelijns PSS, Ponten JEH, van de Poll MCG et al (2017) Subjective outcome after laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair for intrathoracic stomach. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 402(3):521–530Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Prassas D, Rolfs T-M, Schumacher F-J (2015) Laparoscopic repair of giant hiatal hernia. A single center experience. Int J Surg 20:149–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schlottmann F, Strassle PD, Farrell TM et al (2017) Minimally invasive surgery should be the standard of care for paraesophageal hernia repair. J Gastrointest Surg 21(5):778–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zehetner J, DeMeester SR, Ayazi S et al (2011) Laparoscopic versus open repair of paraesophageal hernia: the second decade. J Am Coll Surg 212(5):813–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Owen B, Simorov A, Siref A et al (2014) How does robotic anti-reflux surgery compare with traditional open and laparoscopic techniques: a cost and outcomes analysis. Surg Endosc 28(5):1686–1690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Morino M, Pellegrino L, Giaccone C et al (2006) Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Br J Surg 93(5):553–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Draaisma W, Ruurda JP, Scheffer RCH et al (2006 Nov) Randomized clinical trial of standard laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Br J Surg 93(11):1351–1359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Müller-Stich BP, Reiter MA, Wente MN et al (2007) Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic fundoplication: short-term outcome of a pilot randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 21(10):1800–1805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Elhage O, Challacombe B, Shortland A et al (2015) An assessment of the physical impact of complex surgical tasks on surgeon errors and discomfort: A comparison between robot-assisted, laparoscopic and open approaches. BJU Int 115(2):274–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Van der Schatte Olivier RH, Van’t Hullenaar CD, Ruurda JP et al (2009) Ergonomics, user comfort, and performance in standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 23(6):1365–1371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Moore LJ, Wilson MR, McGrath JS et al (2015) Surgeons’ display reduced mental effort and workload while performing robotically assisted surgical tasks, when compared to conventional laparoscopy. Surg Endosc 29(9):2553–2560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stefanidis D, Wang F, Korndorffer JR et al (2010) Robotic assistance improves intracorporeal suturing performance and safety in the operating room while decreasing operator workload. Surg Endosc 24(2):377–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lee GI, Lee MR, Clanton T et al (2014) Comparative assessment of physical and cognitive ergonomics associated with robotic and traditional laparoscopic surgeries. Surg Endosc 28(2):456–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dalager T, Søgaard K, Bech KT et al (2017) Musculoskeletal pain among surgeons performing minimally invasive surgery: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 31(2):516–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lee GI, Lee MR, Green I et al (2017) Surgeons’ physical discomfort and symptoms during robotic surgery: a comprehensive ergonomic survey study. Surg Endosc 31(4):1697–1706CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander C. Mertens
    • 1
    • 3
  • Rob C. Tolboom
    • 1
  • Hana Zavrtanik
    • 1
    • 4
  • Werner A. Draaisma
    • 2
  • Ivo A. M. J. Broeders
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryMeander Medical CenterAmersfoortThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryJeroen Bosch Hospital’s-HertogenboschThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Medical FacultyUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations