Giant hernias present a significant challenge for digestive surgeons. The approach taken (laparoscopic vs thoracoscopic) depends largely on the preferences and skills of each surgeon, although in most cases today the laparoscopic approach is preferred.

To determine whether patients presenting inadequate laparoscopic access to the intrathoracic hernial sac obtain poorer postoperative results than those with no such problem, in order to assess the need for a thoracoscopic approach.

For the retrospective series of patients treated in our hospital for hiatal hernia (n = 112), we calculated the laparoscopic field of view and the working area accessible to surgical instruments, by means of preoperative imaging tests, to assess the likely outcome for cases inaccessible to laparoscopy.

Patients with giant hiatal hernias for whom a preoperative calculation suggested that the laparoscopic route would not access all areas of the intrathoracic sac presented higher rates of perioperative complications and recurrence during follow-up than those for whom laparoscopy was unimpeded. The difference was statistically significant. Moreover, the insertion of mesh did not improve results for the non-accessible group.

For patients with giant hiatal hernias, it is essential to conduct a preoperative evaluation of the angle of vision and the working area for surgery. When parts of the intrathoracic sac are inaccessible laparoscopically, the thoracoscopic approach should be considered.

Robotic approach in paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair may improve outcomes over laparoscopic approach, though at additional cost. This study aimed to compare cost-effectiveness of robotic and laparoscopic PEH repair.

A decision tree was created analyzing cost-effectiveness of robotic and laparoscopic PEH repair. Costs were obtained from 2021 Medicare data and were accumulated within 60 months after surgery. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Branch-point probabilities and costs of robotic surgery consumables were obtained from published literature. The primary outcome of interest was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. A secondary analysis including attributable capital and maintenance costs of robotic surgery was conducted as well.

Laparoscopic repair yielded 3.660 QALYs at $35,843.82. Robotic repair yielded 3.661 QALYs at $36,342.57, with an ICER of $779,488.62/QALY. Robotic repair was favored when rates of open conversion and symptom recurrence were low, or with reduced cost of robotic instruments. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis favored laparoscopic repair in 100% of simulations. When accounting for costs of robotic technology, robotic approach was preferred only in unrealistic clinical scenarios.

Laparoscopic repair is likely more cost-effective for most institutions, though results were relatively similar. With experienced surgeons who surpass the initial learning curve, robotic surgery may improve outcomes enough to be cost-effective, but only when excluding capital and maintenance fees.