• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
  • Search
    • Search All SAGES Content
    • Search SAGES Guidelines
    • Search the Video Library
    • Search the Image Library
    • Search the Abstracts Archive
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • Search
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2026 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
  • Opportunities
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs and Humanitarian Efforts
  • OWLS/FLS
You are here: Home / Abstracts / How Does the Robot Affect Outcomes? a Retrospective Review of Laparoscopic, Robotic and Open Heller Myotomy with Gastric Fundoplication

How Does the Robot Affect Outcomes? a Retrospective Review of Laparoscopic, Robotic and Open Heller Myotomy with Gastric Fundoplication

Jayaraj Unnirevi, MBBS, Jason Reynoso, MD, Vishal Kothari, MD, Oleg Dolghi, MD, Dmitry Oleynikov, MD. University of Nebraska Medical Center

Background: Although the Da Vinci robotic surgical system is routinely used in urological and gynecological procedures its utilization is less common for general surgery procedures. Minimally invasive Heller myotomy with gastric fundoplication has been performed since the early 1990’s, and this procedure is currently performed laparoscopically and robotically assisted. However, current comparative studies regarding the perioperative outcomes of these techniques are scant. This study aims to evaluate perioperative outcomes of Heller myotomy with gastric fundoplication performed with laparoscopic, robotic and open techniques.

Methods: This study is a multi center, retrospective analysis utilizing a large administrative database. The University Health System Consortium (UHC) is an alliance of more than 100 academic medical centers and nearly 200 affiliate hospitals. UHC clinical database/Resource Manager (CDB/RM) allows member hospitals to compare patient level risk adjusted outcomes for performance improvement purposes. Data from the CDB/RM was queried using International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9) codes for esophagomyotomy, laparoscopic gastric fundoplication, open gastric fundoplication and robotic assistance from 2008 through 2010. Main outcome measures analyzed were mortality, morbidity, length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate, 30-day readmission, and cost.

Results: 824 patients underwent laparoscopic esophagomyotomy, 65 patients underwent robotic assisted esophagomyotomy, and 178 patients had open esophagomyotomy surgery during the 16 month period between Oct 2008 and January 2010. Comparison of patients with laparoscopic esophagomyotomy and robotic assisted esophagomyotomy demonstrated no significant difference in mortality (0.12% vs. 0.0%; p=1), morbidity (10.68% vs. 6.15%; p=0.3), LOS (2.79 ± 3.59 days vs. 2.28 ± 1.77 days; p=0.3), ICU admission rate (7.32% vs. 3.08%; p=0.3), 30-day readmission rate (1.82% vs. 3.08%; p=0.4), and cost ($12,320 ± 12,327vs. $14,055 ± 5,040; p=0.3). On comparison of open esophagomyotomy and robot assisted laparoscopic esophagomyotomy morbidity (23.03% vs. 6.15%; p= 0.002), LOS (6.48 ± 13.68 days vs. 2.28 ± 1.77 days; p=0.01),and ICU admission rate (16.38% vs. 3.08, P=0.004) were all significantly lower in the robot assisted laparoscopic esophagomyotomy. There was not a statistically significant difference of 30-day readmission rate (1.69% vs. 3.08%; p=0.6), mortality (0.56% vs. 0.0%; p=1), and cost ($20,955 ± 39,364 vs. $14,055 ± 5,040; p=0.2).

Conclusion: There was no significant difference in perioperative outcomes between laparoscopic esophagomyotomy and robotic esophagomyotomy. However, perioperative outcomes are superior for the robotic group when compared to the open group. These results show laparoscopic and robotic technique for Heller myotomy with gastric fundoplication to be equivalent with regard to perioperative outcomes and demonstrate that a minimally invasive Heller myotomy with gastric fundoplication should be the procedure of choice.


Session: Poster
Program Number: P490
View Poster

164

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • Click to share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
  • Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky

Related


sages_adbutler_leaderboard

Hours & Info

11300 West Olympic Blvd, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90064

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2025 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals