Randomized controlled trial of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic fundoplication: 12 years follow-up

Abstract

AbstractAimsNumerous reports have addressed the feasibility and safety of robotic-assisted (RALF) and conventional laparoscopic fundoplication (CLF). Long-term follow-up after direct comparison of these two minimally invasive approaches is scarce. The aim of the present study was to assess long-term disease-specific symptoms and quality of life (QOL) in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) treated with RALF or CLF after 12 years in the randomized ROLAF trial.MethodsIn the ROLAF trial 40 patients with GERD were randomized to RALF (n = 20) or CLF (n = 20) between August 2004 and December 2005. At 12 years after surgery, all patients were invited to complete the standardized Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) and the Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia questionnaire (QOLRAD). Failure of treatment was assessed according to Lundell score.ResultsThe GSRS score was similar for RALF (n = 15) and CLF (n = 15) at 12 years´ follow-up (2.1 ± 0.7 vs. 2.2 ± 1.3,p = 0.740). There was no difference in QOLRAD score (RALF 6.4 ± 1.2; CLF 6.4 ± 1.5,p = 0.656) and the QOLRAD score sub items. Long-term failure of treatment according to the definition by Lundell was not different between RALF and CLF [46% (6/13) vs. 33% (4/12),p = 0.806].ConclusionIn accordance with previous short-term outcome studies, the long-term results 12 years after surgery showed no difference between RALF and CLF regarding postoperative symptoms, QOL and failure of treatment. Relief of symptoms and patient satisfaction were high after both procedures on the long-term. Registration number: DRKS00014690 (https://www.drks.de).