• 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 / Laparoscopic Vs. Robotic Paraesophageal Hernia Repair

Laparoscopic Vs. Robotic Paraesophageal Hernia Repair

Francisco J Couto, MD1, Jeremy Warren, MD1, Megan Kemp, MD1, Brent Sinopoli2, Raquel Denis2, William Cobb, MD1, Alfredo Carbonell, DO1. 1University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Greenville; Department of Surgery, Division of Minimal Access and Bariatric Surgery, 2University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Greenville

Background: Laparoscopic Paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair is considered the standard approach. Over the course of the last decade, robotic PEH repair has been an emerging and innovative approach, providing the surgeon with 3D visualization and articulation of instruments for better dissection of the hiatus.

Materials and Methods: A retrospective review of all the PEH repair cases performed in our center during the course of the past 10 years was performed. A total of 342 patients were reviewed, Demographic data, comorbidities, preoperative symptoms, operative details (type of hernia, operative time, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) classification, perioperative complications) and outcomes (length of stay, number of recurrence, post operative symptoms and follow up) were collected for analysis. Student's t-test, Pearson’s chi-square test, Fisher’s exact test, and the Mann-Whitney test were used for comparisons between robotic and laparoscopic study groups. P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. All analyses were carried out using R statistical software

Results: A total of 342 patients underwent PEH repair; 80 patients underwent robotic approach and 262 laparoscopic approach. Patients were similar between groups in demographics, comorbid conditions, and pattern of preoperative symptoms. Type III hernias were more common in the robotic group (80.2% v 62.5%). Operative time was similar in both groups (198.4 vs. 188.8; p=0.255). Complications, recurrence, and postoperative symptomatology was also similar between groups. Length of stay was significantly lower after robotic repair (2.4 vs. 3.2; p=0.015). Mean follow-up was longer for the laparoscopic group (14.4 vs. 8.1 mos; p<0.001). Subgroup analysis of patients undergoing repair of recurrent hernias demonstrated a longer operative time robotically (238.0 v 193.8 min; p=0.013) and no difference in LOS (3.1 v 3.1 days; p=0.983).

Conclusion: Although all other outcomes were comparable, this study demonstrates the robotic approach to primary PEH repair is associated with a considerably shorter length of hospital stay compared to standard laparoscopy. There appears to be no advantage to robotic repair of recurrent PEH over that of standard laparoscopy.


Presented at the SAGES 2017 Annual Meeting in Houston, TX.

Abstract ID: 80512

Program Number: P397

Presentation Session: Poster (Non CME)

Presentation Type: Poster

49

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