U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet]. York (UK): Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK); 1995-.

Cover of Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet].

Show details

Meta analysis of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic fundoplication in children

Review published: .

Bibliographic details: Cundy TP, Harling L, Marcus HJ, Athanasiou T, Darzi AW.  Meta analysis of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic fundoplication in children. Journal of Pediatric Surgery 2014; 49(4): 646-652. [PubMed: 24726129]

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive fundoplication may be performed using either a robot-assisted (RF) or conventional laparoscopic (LF) technique. Evidence comparing RF and LF in children remains unclear. This study aims to elucidate the comparative safety and efficacy of RF versus LF by systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS: Comparative studies investigating RF versus LF in children were identified from multiple electronic literature databases. Meta-analysis was performed using random effects modeling. Safety parameters investigated were post-operative morbidity and intra-operative conversions. Efficacy outcomes of interest were operative success, re-operation, post-operative complications, length of hospital stay (LOS), total operating time (OT), analgesia requirement, and cost.

RESULTS: Six observational studies met inclusion criteria, reporting outcomes of 297 children. No randomized controlled trials were identified. Pooled analysis determined no statistically significant differences between RF and LF for conversions, OT, LOS, and post-operative complications. There was no standardized follow up beyond the early post-operative period to enable data synthesis for remaining outcomes of interest. Limited evidence indicates higher costs with RF.

CONCLUSIONS: Safety and short-term efficacy seem comparable between RF and LF in children. There is insufficient evidence to assess comparative effectiveness for many important procedure specific outcome measures. Higher quality and longer follow-up studies are required.

Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2014 University of York.
Bookshelf ID: NBK223118

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page

Similar articles in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...