Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Utility of the Robot in Revisional Paraosophageal Hiatus Hernia

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Hiatal Hernia Surgery

  • 1028 Accesses

Abstract

Please check whether hierarchy of section heading levels is okay as typeset.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Ilves R. Hiatus hernia. The condition. Chest Surg Clin N Am. 1998;8(2):401–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Weston AP. Hiatal hernia with cameron ulcers and erosions. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 1996;6(4):671–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hill LD, et al. The gastroesophageal flap valve: in vitro and in vivo observations. Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;44(5):541–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hill LD. Incarcerated paraesophageal hernia. A surgical emergency. Am J Surg. 1973;126(2):286–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Peridikis G, Hinder RA. Paraesophageal hiatal hernia. In: Nyhus LM, Condon RE, editors. Hernia. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott; 1995. p. 544–54.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Maish MS, DeMeester SR. Paraesophageal hiatal hernia. In: Cameron J, editor. Current surgical therapy. Philadelphia: Elsevier Mosby; 2004. p. 38–42.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Stylopoulos N, Gazelle GS, Rattner DW. Paraesophageal hernias: operation or observation? Ann Surg. 2002;236(4):492–500. discussion 500–1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Skinner DB, Belsey RH. Surgical management of esophageal reflux and hiatus hernia. Long-term results with 1,030 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1967;53(1):33–54.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Schieman C, Grondin SC. Paraesophageal hernia: clinical presentation, evaluation, and management controversies. Thorac Surg Clin. 2009;19(4):473–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Zehetner J, et al. Laparoscopic versus open repair of paraesophageal hernia: the second decade. J Am Coll Surg. 2011;212(5):813–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Maeso S, et al. Efficacy of the Da Vinci surgical system in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2010;252(2):254–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mouret P. How I developed laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Acad Med Singap. 1996;25(5):744–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Peters MJ, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing open and laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(6):1548–61. quiz 1547, 1562

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Watson DI, Baigrie RJ, Jamieson GG. A learning curve for laparoscopic fundoplication. Definable, avoidable, or a waste of time? Ann Surg. 1996;224(2):198–203.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Lunca S, Bouras G, Stanescu AC. Gastrointestinal robot-assisted surgery. A current perspective. Rom J Gastroenterol. 2005;14(4):385–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Byrn JC, et al. Three-dimensional imaging improves surgical performance for both novice and experienced operators using the da Vinci Robot System. Am J Surg. 2007;193(4):519–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Berguer R, Smith W. An ergonomic comparison of robotic and laparoscopic technique: the influence of surgeon experience and task complexity. J Surg Res. 2006;134(1):87–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Toro JP, Lin E, Patel AD. Review of robotics in foregut and bariatric surgery. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(1):1–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ito F, Gould JC. Robotic foregut surgery. Int J Med Robot. 2006;2(4):287–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Furnee E, Hazebroek E. Mesh in laparoscopic large hiatal hernia repair: a systematic review of the literature. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(11):3998–4008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Draaisma WA, et al. Controversies in paraesophageal hernia repair: a review of literature. Surg Endosc. 2005;19(10):1300–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cadiere GB, et al. Nissen fundoplication done by remotely controlled robotic technique. Ann Chir. 1999;53(2):137–41.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Owen B, et al. How does robotic anti-reflux surgery compare with traditional open and laparoscopic techniques: a cost and outcomes analysis. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(5):1686–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mi J, et al. Whether robot-assisted laparoscopic fundoplication is better for gastroesophageal reflux disease in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(8):1803–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wang Z, Zheng Q, Jin Z. Meta-analysis of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. ANZ J Surg. 2012;82(3):112–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Richter JE. Gastroesophageal reflux disease treatment: side effects and complications of fundoplication. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11(5):465–71. quiz e39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wilshire CL, et al. Clinical Outcomes of Reoperation for Failed Antireflux Operations. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;101(4):1290–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lidor AO, et al. Defining recurrence after paraesophageal hernia repair: correlating symptoms and radiographic findings. Surgery. 2013;154(2):171–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Patti MG, Allaix ME, Fisichella PM. Analysis of the causes of failed antireflux surgery and the principles of treatment: a review. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(6):585–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hunter JG, et al. Laparoscopic fundoplication failures: patterns of failure and response to fundoplication revision. Ann Surg. 1999;230(4):595–604. discussion 604-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Furnee EJ, et al. Surgical reintervention after failed antireflux surgery: a systematic review of the literature. J Gastrointest Surg. 2009;13(8):1539–49.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. van Beek DB, Auyang ED, Soper NJ. A comprehensive review of laparoscopic redo fundoplication. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(3):706–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Dallemagne B, et al. Laparoscopic surgery of gastroesophageal reflux. Ann Chir. 1995;49(1):30–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Little AG, Ferguson MK, Skinner DB. Reoperation for failed antireflux operations. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1986;91(4):511–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Awais O, et al. Reoperative antireflux surgery for failed fundoplication: an analysis of outcomes in 275 patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;92(3):1083–9. discussion 1089-90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Symons NR, et al. Laparoscopic revision of failed antireflux surgery: a systematic review. Am J Surg. 2011;202(3):336–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Yamamoto SR, et al. Long-term outcomes of reintervention for failed fundoplication: redo fundoplication versus Roux-en-Y reconstruction. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(1):42–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Tolboom RC, Draaisma WA, Broeders IA. Evaluation of conventional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic redo hiatal hernia and antireflux surgery: a cohort study. J Robot Surg. 2016;10(1):33–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Ayloo SM, Choudhury N. Robotic revisional bariatric surgery: single-surgeon case series. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg. 2015;11:284–9.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Bindal V, Gonzalez-Heredia R, Elli EF. Outcomes of robot-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass as a reoperative bariatric procedure. Obes Surg. 2015;25(10):1810–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Buchs NC, et al. Robotic revisional bariatric surgery: a comparative study with laparoscopic and open surgery. Int J Med Robot. 2014;10(2):213–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Snyder B, et al. Robotically assisted revision of bariatric surgeries is safe and effective to achieve further weight loss. World J Surg. 2013;37(11):2569–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Zaman JA, Lidor AO. The optimal approach to symptomatic paraesophageal hernia repair: important technical considerations. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2016;18(10):53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, 6431 Fannin Street, MSB 4.156, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Maamoun Harmouch M.D., Erik B. Wilson M.D., Peter A. Walker M.D. & Shinil K. Shah D.O.

  2. Michael E. DeBakey Institute of Comparative Cardiovascular Science and Biomedical Devices, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

    Shinil K. Shah D.O.

Authors
  1. Maamoun Harmouch M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erik B. Wilson M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter A. Walker M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shinil K. Shah D.O.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shinil K. Shah D.O. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, University of Southern Queensland Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia

    Muhammed Ashraf Memon

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Harmouch, M., Wilson, E.B., Walker, P.A., Shah, S.K. (2018). Utility of the Robot in Revisional Paraosophageal Hiatus Hernia. In: Memon, M. (eds) Hiatal Hernia Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64003-7_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64003-7_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-64002-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-64003-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation