Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Surg Endosc. 2010 Aug;24(8):1803-14. doi: 10.1007/s00464-009-0873-9. Epub 2010 Jan 29.

Whether robot-assisted laparoscopic fundoplication is better for gastroesophageal reflux disease in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Author information

Department of Surgery, The Second Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730030, China.



Although laparoscopic fundoplication is an effective, minimally invasive surgical technique for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) that failed to be treated with medicine, with wide implementation its technical limitations have become increasingly clear. Recently, robot-assisted laparoscopic fundoplication (RALF) was considered a new approach that makes up for the deficiency of conventional laparoscopic fundoplication (CLF). This systematic review aimed to assess the feasibility and efficiency of robot-assisted laparoscopic fundoplication for GERD.


Two reviewers independently searched and identified seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and four clinical controlled trials (CCTs) of RALF versus CLF for GERD in the Cochrane database, Medline, Embase, and Science citation index between 2001 and 2009. The main outcomes were operating time, complication rate, hospital stay, and costs. The meta-analysis was performed by Review Manager 5.0 software. The effect size of the clinical outcomes was evaluated by odds ratio (OR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and standard mean difference (SMD) according to different data type. Heterogeneity and sensitivity analysis were used to account for rationality of pooling data and sources of heterogeneity.


Of 483 studies found, a total of 11 trials were included in this review; among 533 patients, 198 patients underwent RALF and 335 patients underwent CLF. The results of meta-analysis showed that the postoperative complication rate (OR = 0.35, 95% CI = [0.13, 0.93], p = 0.04) is lower for RALF, but the total operating time (WMD = 24.05, 95% CI = [5.19, 42.92], p = 0.01) is longer for RALF compared with those for CLF. Statistically, there was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to perioperative complication rate (OR = 0.67, 95% CI = [0.30, 1.48], p = 1.00) and length of hospital stay (WMD = 0.00, 95% CI = [-0.25, 0.26], p = 0.04).


Systematic review of the literature indicates that RALF is a feasible and safe alternative to surgical treatment of GERD. However, since it lacks obvious advantages with respect to operating time, length of hospital stay and cost, RALF has limitations for its extensive application in clinics.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Springer Icon for PubMed Health
    Loading ...
    Support Center