{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,24]],"date-time":"2026-08-24T14:47:53Z","timestamp":1787582873874,"version":"build-2736575974"},"reference-count":0,"publisher":"The University of Kansas","issue":"3","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2022,10,24]],"date-time":"2022-10-24T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1666569600000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-nd\/4.0"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["kjm"],"abstract":"<jats:p>Introduction. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for anti-reflux and hiatal hernia surgery is becoming increasingly prevalent. The purpose of this study was to compare hospital length of stay and outcomes of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair.\nMethods. A retrospective review was conducted of 58 patients who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic (n = 42, 72.4%) or conventional laparoscopic (n = 16, 27.6%) hiatal hernia repair.\nResults. Patient characteristics and comorbidities were similar between groups. The robotic-assisted group had a significantly higher use of fundoplication (81.3% vs. 38.1%; p = 0.007). Complications observed between the robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic groups were pneumothorax (6.3% vs. 11.9%, p = 1.000), infection (0% vs. 4.8%, p = 1.000), perforation (0% vs. 2.4%, P=1.000), bleeding (6.3% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.479), ICU admission (31.3% vs. 11.9%, p = 0.119), and mechanical ventilation (18.8% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.60). There were no reported complications of dysphagia, DVT\/PE, MI, or death in either group. Hospital length of stay was similar for robotic vs conventional patients (3.0 vs. 2.5 days, p = 0.301).\nConclusions. This study\u2019s data showed robotic-assisted hiatal hernia repair has comparable outcomes to conventional laparoscopic repair.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.17161\/kjm.vol15.18248","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2022,10,24]],"date-time":"2022-10-24T14:27:15Z","timestamp":1666621635000},"page":"365-368","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":17,"title":["Comparing Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted versus Conventional Laparoscopic Hiatal Hernia Repair"],"prefix":"10.17161","volume":"15","author":[{"given":"Marcus","family":"Tjeerdsma","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Karson","family":"Quinn","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-8760-7950","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Stephen","family":"Helmer","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Kyle","family":"Vincent","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"6672","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2022,10,24]]},"container-title":["Kansas Journal of Medicine"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.ku.edu\/kjm\/article\/download\/18248\/16697","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.ku.edu\/kjm\/article\/download\/18248\/16697","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2022,10,24]],"date-time":"2022-10-24T14:27:16Z","timestamp":1666621636000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.ku.edu\/kjm\/article\/view\/18248"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2022,10,24]]},"references-count":0,"journal-issue":{"issue":"3","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2022,10,24]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.17161\/kjm.vol15.18248","relation":{},"ISSN":["1948-2035"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1948-2035","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2022,10,24]]}}}