Robotic versus laparoscopic median arcuate ligament (MAL) release: a retrospective comparative study

Background Multiple retrospective studies have demonstrated the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic median arcuate ligament division with celiac neurolysis for the definitive management of median arcuate ligament syndrome (MALS). This study queries the clinical equipoise of robotic (RMALR) versus laparoscopic MAL release (LMALR) at a high-volume center. Methods A retrospective analysis of consecutive 26 RMALR and 24 LMALR between March 2018 and August 2019 by a single surgeon at a quaternary academic institution was completed. Primary endpoint was postoperative decrease in celiac trunk expiratory peak systolic velocities (PSVs) measured by mesenteric duplex ultrasonography. Secondary outcomes included reported improvement in MALS-related clinical symptoms, distribution of first assistant seniority level, and involvement of second assistants in RMALR versus LMALR. Results Mean operative times for LMALR and RMALR were 86 and 134 min, respectively ( p < 0.0001). There were no open conversions and mean length of hospital stay was 1 day for both cohorts. Both groups provided an equally effective decrease in postoperative peak systolic velocities (PSVs) (LMALR p = 0.0011; RMALR p = 0.0022; LMALR vs. RMALR p = 0.7772). While RMALR had significantly higher reduction of chronic abdominal pain postoperatively, there were no significant differences in other postoperative symptom relief between groups. However, RMALR patients reported significant relief of postprandial abdominal pain ( p < 0.0001) and chronic nausea ( p = 0.0002). RMALR had significantly more junior first assistants ( p = 0.0001) and less frequently required second assistants compared to LMALR ( p = 0.0381). Conclusions In this study comparing RMALR to LMALR, postoperative chronic abdominal pain relief was significantly less in the former while other outcomes were equivalent. In comparison with LMALR, RMALR cases were associated with more junior first assistants, fewer second assistants, and longer operative times. Both approaches are safe and feasible for well-selected patients in experienced centers.