Hiatal mesh is associated with major resection at revisional operation

Hiatal Hernia Repair With Tension-Free Mesh or Crural Sutures Alone in Antireflux Surgery: A 13-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Antireflux surgery is an effective treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), but the durability of concomitant hiatal hernia repair remains challenging. Previous research reported that the use of a mesh-reinforced, tension-free technique was associated with more dysphagia for solid foods after 3 years without reducing hiatal hernia recurrence rates compared with crural sutures alone, but the long-term effects of this technique have not been assessed.

Objective

To assess the long-term anatomical and functional outcomes of using a mesh for hiatal hernia repair in patients with GERD.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A double-blind, randomized clinical trial was performed at a single center (Ersta Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden) from January 11, 2006, to December 1, 2010. A total of 159 patients were recruited and randomly assigned. Data for the current analysis were collected from September 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022. All analyses were conducted with the intention-to-treat population.

Interventions

Closure of the diaphragmatic hiatus with crural sutures alone vs a tension-free technique using a nonabsorbable polytetrafluoroethylene mesh (Bard CruraSoft).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was radiologically verified recurrent hiatal hernia after more than 10 years. Secondary outcomes were dysphagia scores (ranging from 1 to 4, with 1 indicating no episodes of dysphagia and 4 indicating more than 3 episodes of dysphagia per day) for solid and liquid foods, generic 36-Item Short Form Health Survey and disease-specific Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale symptom assessment scores, proton pump inhibitor consumption, and reoperation rates. Intergroup comparisons of parametric data were performed using t tests; for nonparametric data, Mann-Whitney U, χ2, or Fisher exact tests were used. For intragroup comparisons vs the baseline at follow-up times, the Friedman test was used, and post hoc analysis was performed using Wilcoxon matched pairs.

Results

Of 145 available patients, follow-up data were obtained from 103 (response rate 71%; mean [SD] age at follow-up, 65 [11.3] years; 55 [53%] female), with 53 initially randomly assigned to mesh reinforcement, and 50 to crural suture alone. The mean (SD) follow-up time was 13 (1.1) years. The verified radiologic hiatal hernia recurrence rates were 11 of 29 (38%) in the mesh group vs 11 of 35 (31%) in the suture group (P = .61). However, 13 years postoperatively, mean (SD) dysphagia scores for solids remained significantly higher in the mesh group (mean [SD], 1.9 [0.7] vs 1.6 [0.9]; P = .01).

Conclusions and Relevance

Findings from this long-term follow-up of a randomized clinical trial suggest that tension-free crural repair with nonabsorbable mesh does not reduce the incidence of hiatal hernia recurrence 13 years postoperatively. This finding combined with maintained higher dysphagia scores does not support the routine use of tension-free polytetrafluoroethylene mesh closure in laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair for treatment of GERD.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05069493.

Pre-existing hiatal mesh increases morbidity during and after revisional antireflux surgery: A retrospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Revisional antireflux surgery, including hiatus hernia repair, is increasingly common. Mesh-augmented hiatal closure at the time of index operation is controversial but commonly performed. Although a meta-analysis of randomized data has demonstrated no additional benefit of routine mesh placement, it is unclear whether this practice results in harm, particularly at the time of revisional antireflux surgery. We determined whether pre-existing mesh at the hiatus increases morbidity during and after revisional antireflux surgery.

METHODS

Analysis of prospectively-maintained databases of all elective revisional antireflux surgery cases in 36 hospitals across Australia took place over 10 years. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of patients with and without prior hiatal mesh were compared. Propensity score-matched analysis was used to validate primary findings.

RESULTS

A total of 346 revisional cases (35 with pre-existing mesh) were analyzed. The 2 groups had comparable baseline characteristics. In total, 77 (22.2%) patients had 148 intraoperative adverse events. Pre-existing mesh was associated with a higher risk of intraoperative complications (48.6% vs 22.5%, odds ratio 3.25, 95% confidence interval 1.63-6.38, P = .002), secondary to bleeding, and lacerations to pleura, lung, and liver. Overall, 63 (18.2%) patients developed postoperative complications. Pre-existing mesh was associated with increased postoperative morbidity (37.1% vs 16.1%, odds ratio 3.09, 95% confidence interval 1.50-6.43, P = .005), particularly due to bleeding and respiratory complications. Importantly, pre-existing mesh independently predicted the occurrence of intraoperative and postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

Prior hiatal mesh significantly increases morbidity during and after revisional antireflux surgery. Given that revisional surgery is increasingly being performed, our findings discourage routine mesh use during primary antireflux surgery.

Large hiatus hernia: time for a paradigm shift?

Background

Laparoscopic large hiatal hernia (LHH) repair remains a challenge despite three decades of ongoing attempts at improving surgical outcome. Its rarity and complexity, coupled with suboptimal initial approach that is usually best suited for small symptomatic herniae have contributed to unacceptable higher failure rates.

Results

We have therefore undertaken a systematic appraisal of LHH with a view to clear out our misunderstandings of this entity and to address dogmatic practices that may have contributed to poor outcomes.

Conclusions

First, we propose strict criteria to define nomenclature in LHH and discuss ways of subcategorising them. Next, we discuss preoperative workup strategies, paying particular attention to any relevant often atypical symptoms, indications for surgery, timing of surgery, role of surgery in the elderly and emphasizing the key role of a preoperative CT imaging in evaluating the mediastinum. Some key dissection methods are then discussed with respect to approach to the mediastinal sac, techniques to avoid/deal with pleural breach and rationale to avoid Collis gastroplasty. The issues pertaining to the repair phase are also discussed by evaluating the merits of the cruroplasty, fundoplication types and gastropexy. We end up debating the role of mesh reinforcement and assess the evidence with regards to recurrence, reoperation rate, complications, esophageal dilatation, delayed gastric emptying and mortality. Lastly, we propose a rationale for routine postoperative investigations.

Anatomic location and mechanism of hiatal hernia recurrence: a video-based assessment

INTRODUCTION

Hiatal hernia recurrence following surgical repair is common. We sought to define the most common anatomic location and mechanism for hiatal failure to inform technical strategies to decrease recurrence rates.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review and video analysis were performed for all recurrent hiatal hernia operations performed by a single surgeon between January 2013 and April 2020. Hiatal recurrences were defined by anatomic quadrants. Recurrences on both left and right on either the anterior or posterior portion of the hiatus were simply classified as 'anterior' or 'posterior', respectively. Three or more quadrants were defined as circumferential. Mechanism of recurrence was defined as disruption of the previous repair or dilation of the hiatus.

RESULTS

There were 130 patients to meet criteria. Median time to reoperation from previous hiatal repair was 60 months (IQR19.5-132). First-time recurrent repairs accounted for 74%, second time 18%, and three or more previous repairs for 8% of analyzed procedures. Mesh had been placed at the hiatus in a previous operation in 16%. All reoperative cases were completed laparoscopically. Video analysis revealed anterior recurrences were most common (67%), followed by circumferential (29%). There were two with left-anterior recurrence (1.5%), two posterior recurrence (1.5%), and one right-sided recurrence. The mechanism of recurrence was dilation in 74% and disruption in 26%. Disruption as a mechanism was most common in circumferential hiatal failures. Neither the prior number of hiatal surgeries nor the presence of mesh at the time of reoperation correlated with anatomic recurrence location or mechanism. Reoperations in patients with hiatal disruption occurred after a shorter interval when compared to hiatal dilation.

CONCLUSION

The most common location and mechanism for hiatal hernia recurrence is anterior dilation of the hiatus. Outcomes following techniques designed to reinforce the anterior hiatus and perhaps to prevent hiatal dilation should be explored.

[Mesh Implantation in Anti-Reflux and Hiatal Hernia Surgery - Contra Statement]

In the surgical treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease and of hiatal hernias, the high rate of recurrence of hiatal hernias is a central problem. Against this background, various, primarily alloplastic, meshes are used to augment suture closure on the esophageal hiatus. Very different results have been reported in the past and the use of meshes in hiatus reconstruction is controversial. In addition to the frequency of recurrences, reports about complications of mesh augmentation are in the foreground. On the basis of several prospective randomised double-blinded comparative studies and meta-analyses (class Ia and Ib evidence), the current data do not show any advantages of mesh-augmented hiatoplasty for the prevention of recurrence of hiatal hernia. At the same time, there exist reports of more long-term postoperative complications, especially dysphagia, after use of meshes for augmentation of hiatus reconstruction. Therefore, routine use of mesh augmentation for hiatus reconstruction is currently not recommended.

Does composite repair of giant paraoesophageal hernia improve patient outcomes?

BACKGROUND

Paraoesophageal hernia (PEH) is often symptomatic and reduces patients' quality of life (QoL). There is ongoing debate regarding the most effective surgical technique to repair giant PEH. This study aimed to see if an elective laparoscopic non-mesh composite technique of giant PEH repair offered an advantage in symptom control, hernia recurrence, QoL, morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

Data were extracted from a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing hiatal hernia repair. Composite hernia repairs from inception for giant PEH between March 2009 and December 2015 were included. Perioperative mortality, complications, hernia recurrence rates, prevalence, recurrence of symptoms and QoL were included in analysis.

RESULTS

Inclusion criteria were met by 218 patients. Mean age was 70 (49-93). The average hernia size was 62% (range 30-100%; SD 21). There was one perioperative death and three significant complications (Clavien-Dindo grade III and IV). Recurrence rate was 24.8%. Without recurrence, QoL improved significantly across all domains. Recurrence of hiatus hernia reduced QoL. Surgery resulted in resolution of symptoms other than dysphagia which was incompletely improved. Patients' overall satisfaction with surgery was high.

CONCLUSION

Composite repair of giant PEH is safe with overall good outcomes. Majority of hernia recurrence are small and asymptomatic. Hernia recurrence negatively affected long-term QoL scores.

The use of biosynthetic mesh in giant hiatal hernia repair: is there a rationale? A 3-year single-center experience

PURPOSE

Reinforced prosthetic crural repair is particularly indicated for giant hiatal hernias. The rationale is to reduce the recurrence rate in the long term. The aim of our study is to evaluate the outcomes of laparoscopic giant hiatal hernia repair using a biosynthetic mesh.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 44 patients who underwent laparoscopic mesh-reinforced hiatal closure and fundoplication using a biosynthetic material. Inclusion criterion was large hiatal defects (> 5 cm). Follow-up was scheduled at 6, 12 and 36 months after surgery.

RESULTS

44 patients (29F) with a mean age of 62 years (range 14-85) and mean of BMI 24.5 kg/m² (range 21-29) underwent successful laparoscopic repair. Twenty-six (59.1%) patients had Nissen-Rossetti fundoplication, whereas 18 (40.9%) had Toupet fundoplication. Six-month questionnaire for the evaluation of symptoms was available for 43 patients (97.7%) and for 40 (90.9%) patients at 12 and 36 months. Mean preoperative symptoms score analysis was 1.68 ± 0.73. Mean scores at each follow-up time were significantly improved compared to baseline (p > 0.05). Barium swallow was available in 37 patients (84.1%) at 1 year after surgery. Radiologic recurrence was observed in two patients (4.5%). No patient had symptoms attributable to recurrence or required revisional surgery. There were no mesh-related complications at 3 years follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of biosynthetic mesh for crural reinforcement is associated with a low incidence of mesh-related complications and with a reasonably low recurrence rate (4.5%) at 36 months. However, additional data with longer follow-up are needed to determine long-term safety and efficacy.

Evolution From the U-shaped to Keyhole-shaped Mesh Configuration in the Repair of Paraesophageal and Recurrent Hiatal Hernia

BACKGROUND

Paraesophageal hernia (PEH) and recurrent hiatal hernia (RHH) are prone to recurrences. One adjunct used to reduce recurrences is mesh reinforcement. The optimal configuration is yet to be determined. We present our evolution from the U-shaped to the keyhole pattern.

METHODS

All patients undergoing PEH/RHH repair with mesh between 2013 and 2019 were reviewed for demographic information, perioperative/intraoperative details, postoperative complications, and recurrences.

RESULTS

Of patients undergoing PEH/RHH repair between 2013 and 2019, 138 were repaired using mesh. Of these, 88 were repaired using the U-shaped configuration and 50 using the keyhole configuration. The U-shaped configuration was used for PEH in 72% and RHH in 28%, while the keyhole configuration was used for PEH in 66% and RHH in 34%. Thirty patients suffered postoperative complications, although there was no difference between the groups. Overall, 28 patients in the U-shaped configuration group (31.8%) had a recurrence of their hiatal hernia identified, compared with 7 patients (14.6%) in the keyhole group (P=0.039). The median time to last follow-up was 21 months (range: 1 to 85) in the U-shaped group and 8 months (range: 1 to 23) in the keyhole group. There was no difference in median time to recurrence, postoperative dysphagia, dilations, or strictures.

CONCLUSIONS

The keyhole pattern mesh was not associated with a higher complication rate compared with the U-shape pattern. Although this study was not a direct comparison between the configurations, it does suggest that the keyhole pattern may lead to fewer recurrences.

Paraesophageal Hernia: To Mesh or Not to Mesh? The Controversy Continues

Introduction: Paraesophageal hernias represent 5%-10% of all primary hiatal hernias and are becoming increasingly more common with the aging of the population. Surgical treatment includes closure of the wide hiatal gap. Achieving tension-free closure is difficult, and several studies have reported lower recurrence rates with the use of mesh reinforcement. The use of this technique, however, is controversial. Objective and Materials and Methods: Narrative revision of the literature revising: (1) evidence-based surgery and clinical studies, (2) what the experts say (Delphi), (3) complications of mesh, and (4) long-term results of laparoscopic treatment impact on the quality of life. Results: Consensus about the type of mesh continues to be elusive, and we clearly need a higher level of evidence to address the controversy. Conclusion: Mesh reinforcement can effectively reduce the hernia recurrence rate. Mesh-associated complications are few, but because they are serious, most experts recommend mesh use only in specific circumstances, particularly those in relation to the size of the hiatal defect and the quality of the crura.

Mesh reinforcement of paraesophageal hernia repair: Trends and outcomes from a national database

BACKGROUND

Placement of paraesophageal type of "mesh" in paraesophageal hernia repair is controversial. This study examines the trends and outcomes of mesh placement in paraesophageal hernia repair.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was queried for patients who underwent paraesophageal hernia repair with or without mesh (2010-2017). Demographics, operative approach, and outcomes were compared over time.

RESULTS

Of 25,801, most paraesophageal hernia repair cases were elective (89.3%), without mesh (61.9%), and performed laparoscopically (91.3%).When compared with open paraesophageal hernia repair patients, the patients undergoing laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair had lesser rates of reoperation, readmission, mortality, overall complications and major complications (2.7% vs 4.8%, 6.2% vs 9.6%, 0.6% vs 2.9%, 7.1% vs 21.3%, 3.8% vs 11.1%, respectively; all P < .0001). Mesh placement was more common in laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair (38.9 vs 29.7, P < .0001) than opern paraesophageal hernia repair. During 2010-2017, mesh placement decreased from 46.2% to 35.2% of laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair (P < .0001). Operative times for laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair decreased over time, and laparoscpic paraesophageal hernia repair without mesh was consistently less (with mesh: 176.0 ± 71.0 to 149.9 ± 72.5 min, without mesh: 148.6 ± 71.4 to 134.6 ± 70.4). We observed no changes in comorbidities or adverse outcomes over time. Using multivariate analysis to control for potential confounding factors, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was associated most strongly with adverse outcomes, including mortality (OR 2.53, CI 1.55-4.14), any complications (OR 1.80, CI 1.51-2.16), major complications (OR 1.80, CI 1.51-2.16), readmission (OR 1.63, CI 1.33-1.99) and reoperation (OR 1.49, CI 1.10-2.02). Mesh placement was not associated with adverse outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The placement of mesh during laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair is not associated with adverse outcomes. Use of mesh with laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair is decreasing with no apparent adverse impact on short-term patient outcomes. Further research is needed to investigate patient factors not captured by this national database, such as characteristics of the hernia, patient symptoms, and hernia recurrence.

[Hiatus hernia : Standards and controversies in diagnostics and treatment]

A hiatus hernia is defined as a transdiaphragmatic protrusion/migration of the intrabdominal contents through the esophageal hiatus of the diaphragm. The classification of hiatus hernias is based on anatomical morphological differentiation (types I-IV). The leading symptoms and psychological stress vary with respect to the symptoms, e. g. reflux and compression symptoms. Gastroscopy and multichannel intraluminal impedance pH measurement are obligatory preoperative functional diagnostics. A distinction is made between frequent type I hernia (antireflux surgery), symptomatic paraesophageal, thoracic and mixed hernia types (II-IV). Surgical indications exist in symptomatic type II-IV hernias. Hiatal mesh augmentation reduces recurrences. The complication potential of synthetic meshes must be taken into account. Biological implants show no advantages.

Strategies for surgical remediation of the multi-fundoplication failure patient

BACKGROUND

Outcomes are not well studied in patients undergoing remediation for multi-fundoplication failure, that is, two or more prior failed fundoplications. Re-operation must balance reflux control and restoration of the ability to eat with the challenge of reconstructing a distorted hiatus and GE junction. The purpose of this study is to present our experience with surgical remediation for multi-fundoplication failure.

METHODS

Medical records were retrospectively reviewed of 91 patients who underwent third time or more esophagogastric operation for fundoplication failure at a single institution from 2007 to 2016. Dysphagia was present in 56% and heartburn in 51%. Median number of prior operations was 2 with range up to 6. Anatomic failure consisted of slipped wrap in 26 cases, wrap herniation in 23, hiatal stenosis in 24, hiatal mesh complication in 8, and wrap dehiscence in 10. Operative approaches generally followed an institutional algorithm and consisted of hiatal hernia repair with: re-do fundoplication in 55%, takedown of fundoplication alone in 24%, Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy in 14%, and GE junction resection in 7%. Laparoscopic approach was successful in 81%.

RESULTS

Mean duration of operations was 217 min and median length of stay was 3 days. The complication rate was 13%, with 7% undergoing unplanned early re-operation. Patients were followed for mean 11 months, and recurrent hiatal hernia was detected in 13%. Late re-operation was performed in 6% for recurrent hiatal hernia. Recurrent reflux symptomatology resolved in 93%. Dysphagia resolved in 84%. There were no significant differences in outcomes with regard to number of prior operations, operative approach, BMI, or age.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no single best approach to remediation in the multi-fundoplication failure patient. Re-do fundoplication is appropriate in over half of patients. Reoperation for multi-fundoplication failure can be performed via minimally invasive approach with excellent remediation of symptoms, low morbidity, and low recurrence rates.

Esophageal hiatal hernia: risk, diagnosis and management

Esophageal hiatal hernia involves abnormal abdominal entry into thoracic cavity. It is classified based on orientation between esophageal junction and diaphragm. Sliding hiatal hernia (Type-I) comprises the most frequent category, emanating from right crus of diaphragm. Type-II esophageal hernia engages both left and right muscular crura. Type-III and IV additionally include the left crus. Age and increased body mass index are key risk factors, and congenital skeletal aberrations trigger pathogenesis through intestinal malrotations. Familiar manifestations include gastric reflux, nausea, bloating, chest and epigastric discomfort, pharyngeal and esophageal expulsion and dysphagia. Weight loss and colorectal bleeding are severe symptoms. Areas covered: This review summarizes updated evidence of pathophysiology, risk factors, diagnosis and management of hiatal hernias. Laparoscopy and oesophagectomy procedures have been discussed as surgical procedures. Expert commentary: Endoscopy identifies untreatable gastric reflux; radiology is better for pre-operative assessments; manometry measures esophageal peristalsis, and CT scanning detects gastric volvulus and associated organ ruptures. Gastric reflux disease is mitigated using antacids and proton pump and histamine-2-receptor blockers. Severe abdominal penetration into chest cavity demands surgical approaches. Hence, esophagectomy has chances of post-operative morbidity, while minimally invasive laparoscopy entails fewer postoperative difficulties and better visualization of hernia and related vascular damages.

Laparoscopic Paraesophageal Hernia Repair: Utilization Rates of Mesh in the USA and Short-Term Outcome Analysis

BACKGROUND

Many studies have shown that the utilization of mesh for paraesophageal hernia repair (PEHR) does not prevent recurrence. The aims of this study were (a) to assess the utilization of mesh for PEHR in the USA and (b) to compare the perioperative outcomes between PEHR with and without mesh.

METHODS

A retrospective population-based analysis was performed using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Adult patients who underwent laparoscopic PEHR with and without implantation of mesh between 2011 and 2014 were included. The yearly utilization of mesh, stratified by surgical approach, was estimated using the Poisson regression. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the effect of mesh on 30-day perioperative outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 9590 laparoscopic PEHR were included, 5814 (60.6%) without mesh and 3776 (39.4%) with mesh. The yearly rate of PEHR with implantation of mesh did not change significantly during the study period (39.4% mesh utilization in 2011, and 38.2% mesh utilization in 2014, p = 0.37). Patients undergoing PEHR with mesh, as compared to those without mesh, had similar incidence of 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality.

CONCLUSION

Even though there is no strong evidence to support its use, utilization rates of mesh for laparoscopic PEHR remained high and stable between 2011 and 2014 in the USA. The use of mesh was not associated with a higher incidence of postoperative complications.

Pre-Existing Mesh at the Hiatus in Revisional Surgery Does Not Result in Increased Morbidity: A Case-Control Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Mesh is sometimes used to reinforce the hiatus during primary and reoperative fundoplication. This is a controversial practice as it is not clear that this leads to a decreased rate of failure of the hiatal closure, and concerns about morbidity related to the presence of mesh in this location exist. One of these concerns is that if reoperation is ever required (fundoplication herniates through the hiatus, for example), revisional surgery would be significantly more difficult and associated with a higher rate of morbidity than if mesh had not been placed at the hiatus in a previous procedure.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of prospectively collected data on 104 patients to undergo surgery for a failed fundoplication between 2011 and 2015. Fourteen patients (13.5%) had previous operations where mesh had been placed at the hiatus and underwent a subsequent revisional procedure. Procedures performed were reoperative fundoplication and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass as a salvage procedure for a failed fundoplication, especially in the setting of obesity. These 14 cases were matched 1:2 with randomly selected control patients from the database who underwent revisional surgery in whom mesh had not been placed at the original operation. Cases and controls were paired based on the number of previous revision attempts and operation type. Perioperative outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in 30-day morbidity, readmission, operative time, or length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective case-control evaluation, mesh at the hiatus did have an impact on morbidity or operative time.

Mesh cruroplasty in laparoscopic repair of paraesophageal hernias is not associated with better long-term outcomes compared to primary repair

BACKGROUND

Equipoise still exists regarding routine mesh cruroplasty during laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia (PEH). We aimed to determine whether selective mesh cruroplasty is associated with differences in recurrence and patient-reported outcomes.

METHODS

We compared symptom outcomes (n = 688) and radiographic recurrences (n = 101; at least 10% [or 2 cm] of stomach above hiatus) for 795 non-emergent PEH repair with fundoplication (n = 106 with mesh).

RESULTS

Heartburn, regurgitation, epigastric pain, and anti-reflux medication use decreased significantly in both groups while postoperative dysphagia (mesh; p = 0.14), and bloating (non-mesh; p = 0.32), were unchanged. Radiographic recurrence rates were similar (15 mesh [22%] versus 86 non-mesh [17%]; p = 0.32; median 27 [IQR 14, 53] months), but was associated with surgical dissatisfaction (13% vs 4%; p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Selective mesh cruroplasty was not associated with differences in symptom outcomes or radiographic recurrence rates during laparoscopic PEH repair. Radiographic recurrence was associated with dissatisfaction, emphasizing the need for continued focus on reducing recurrences.

Gasless laparoscopic surgery plus abdominal wall lifting for giant hiatal hernia-our single-center experience

Giant hiatal hernia (GHH) comprises 5% of hiatal hernia and is associated with significant complications. The traditional operative procedure, no matter transthoracic or transabdomen repair of giant hiatal hernia, is characteristic of more invasion and more complications. Although laparoscopic repair as a minimally invasive surgery is accepted, a part of patients can not tolerate pneumoperitoneum because of combination with cardiopulmonary diseases or severe posterior mediastinal and neck emphesema during operation. The aim of this article was to analyze our experience in gasless laparoscopic repair with abdominal wall lifting to treat the giant hiatal hernia. We performed a retrospective review of patients undergoing gasless laparoscopic repair of GHH with abdominal wall lifting from 2012 to 2015 at our institution. The GHH was defined as greater than one-third of the stomach in the chest. Gasless laparoscopic repair of GHH with abdominal wall lifting was attempted in 27 patients. Mean age was 67 years. The results showed that there were no conversions to open surgery and no intraoperative deaths. The mean duration of operation was 100 min (range: 90-130 min). One-side pleura was injured in 4 cases (14.8%). The mean postoperative length of stay was 4 days (range: 3-7 days). Median follow- up was 26 months (range: 6-38 months). Transient dysphagia for solid food occurred in three patients (11.1%), and this symptom disappeared within three months. There was one patient with recurrent hiatal hernia who was reoperated on. Two patients still complained of heartburn three months after surgery. Neither reoperation nor endoscopic treatment due to signs of postoperative esophageal stenosis was required in any patient. Totally, satisfactory outcome was reported in 88.9% patients. It was concluded that the gasless laparoscopic approach with abdominal wall lifting to the repair of GHH is feasible, safe, and effective for the patients who cannot tolerate the pneumoperitoneum.

Medium-term durability of giant hiatus hernia repair without mesh

Introduction This is the second report on objective review of 100 patients who underwent composite fundoplication-cardiopexy for repair of giant hiatus hernia (GHH) at a median of 24 months following surgery. Outcomes were objective follow-up by endoscopy and quality of life (QoL) by Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI), modified Visick scores and dysphagia scores. The initial report for this cohort suggested a low objective recurrence rate (9%) and substantial improvements in QoL indices. Methods The rate of hernia recurrence was assessed with Kaplan-Meier analysis and covariates were analysed with the Cox proportional hazards model. Paired t-tests and related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare QoL scores. Unpaired data were compared with the independent samples t-test and Mann-Whitney U test. Results Objective review was obtained in 97% of the patients. There were five recurrences of hernias that had a vertical height of >2cm from the diaphragmatic hiatus, with three patients requiring reoperation for severe dysphagia. Small recurrences (<2cm) occurred in 20 patients. The median time to recurrence was 40 months (95% confidence interval: 34-46 months). At two years, recurrence of any size had occurred in 24% of cases. At follow-up review (median: 27 months), the mean GIQLI score was 109 (p=0.279), the median modified Visick score was 2 (p=0.954) and the median dysphagia score was 41 (p=0.623). There was no evidence that the GIQLI score (p=0.089), the modified Visick score (p=0.339) or the dysphagia score (p=0.445) changed significantly after recurrence. Conclusions There was a sustained improvement in overall QoL and reflux scores after GHH repair. QoL scores showed persistent improvement in reflux and overall health, even in the subgroup with recurrence. The majority (80%) of recurrences were small and recurrent herniation did not appear to significantly change QoL. The rates of recurrence and QoL are comparable with those for other methods of repair.

Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Sleeve Gastrectomy

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and/or hiatus hernia (HH) are one of the most common disorders of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Despite the positive effect of sleeve gastrectomy (SG) regarding weight loss and improvement in obesity co-morbidities, there are concerns about the development of de novo gastroesophageal reflux disease or worsening the existing GERD after this bariatric operation. Furthermore, controversy exists on the consequences of SG in lower esophageal sphincter function and about the ideal procedure when a hiatus hernia is preoperatively diagnosed or discovered during the laparoscopic SG. This review systematically investigates the incidence, the pathophysiology of GERD and/or HH in morbidly obese individuals before and after SG, and the treatment options for concomitant HH repair during laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.

Laparoscopic Mesh-augmented Hiatoplasty With Cardiophrenicopexy Versus Laparoscopic Nissen Fundoplication for the Treatment of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Double-center Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

Laparoscopic mesh-augmented hiatoplasty with cardiophrenicopexy (LMAH-C) might represent an alternative treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and may provide durable reflux control without fundoplication. The expected benefit is the prevention of fundoplication-related side effects. Aim of the present trial was to compare LMAH-C with laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) in patients with GERD.

METHODS

In a double-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) patients with proven GERD were eligible and assigned by central randomization to either LMAH-C (n = 46) or LNF (n = 44). The indigestion subscore of the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale questionnaire (GSRS) indicating gas-related symptoms as possible side effects of LNF was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints comprised pH testing and endoscopy and other symptoms measured by the GSRS, dysphagia, and the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index. The follow-up period was 36 months.

RESULTS

Indigestion subscore (LMAH-C 2.9 ± 1.5 vs LNF 3.7 ± 1.6; P = 0.031) but not dysphagia (2.8 ± 1.9 vs 2.3 ± 1.7; P = 0.302) and quality of life (106.9 ± 25.5 vs 105.8 ± 24.9; P = 0.838) differed between the groups at 36 months postoperatively. Although the reflux subscore improved in both groups, it was worse in LMAH-C patients (2.5 ± 1.6 vs 1.6 ± 1.0; P = 0.004) corresponding to a treatment failure of 77.3% in LMAH-C patients and of 34.1% in LNF patients (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

LNF is more effective in the treatment of GERD than LMAH-C. Procedure-related side effects seem to exist but do not affect the quality of life. Laparoscopic fundoplication therefore remains the standard surgical treatment for GERD.

The Use of Biological Meshes in Diaphragmatic Defects - An Evidence-Based Review of the Literature

The widespread use of meshes for hiatal hernia repair has emerged in the era of laparoscopic surgery, although sporadic cases of mesh augmentation of traumatic diaphragmatic rupture have been reported. The indications for biologic meshes in diaphragmatic repair are ill defined. This systematic review aims to investigate the available evidence on the role of biologic meshes in diaphragmatic rupture and hiatal hernia repair. Limited data from sporadic case reports and case series have demonstrated that repair of traumatic diaphragmatic rupture with biologic mesh is safe technique in both the acute or chronic setting. High level evidence demonstrates short-term benefits of biologic mesh augmentation in hiatal hernia repair over primary repair, although adequate long-term data are not currently available. Long-term follow-up data suggest no benefit of hiatal hernia repair using porcine small intestine submucosa over suture repair. The effectiveness of different biologic mesh materials on hernia recurrence requires further investigation.

Use of Mesh in Laparoscopic Paraesophageal Hernia Repair: A Meta-Analysis and Risk-Benefit Analysis

Introduction

Mesh augmentation seems to reduce recurrences following laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair (LPHR). However, there is an uncertain risk of mesh-associated complications. Risk-benefit analysis might solve the dilemma.

Materials and Methods

A systematic literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational clinical studies (OCSs) comparing laparoscopic mesh-augmented hiatoplasty (LMAH) with laparoscopic mesh-free hiatoplasty (LH) with regard to recurrences and complications. Random effects meta-analyses were performed to determine potential benefits of LMAH. All data regarding LMAH were used to estimate risk of mesh-associated complications. Risk-benefit analysis was performed using a Markov Monte Carlo decision-analytic model.

Results

Meta-analysis of 3 RCTs and 9 OCSs including 915 patients revealed a significantly lower recurrence rate for LMAH compared to LH (pooled proportions, 12.1% vs. 20.5%; odds ratio (OR), 0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.34 to 0.89; p = 0.04). Complication rates were comparable in both groups (pooled proportions, 15.3% vs. 14.2%; OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.65; p = 0.94). The systematic review of LMAH data yielded a mesh-associated complication rate of 1.9% (41/2121; 95% CI, 1.3% to 2.5%) for those series reporting at least one mesh-associated complication. The Markov Monte Carlo decision-analytic model revealed a procedure-related mortality rate of 1.6% for LMAH and 1.8% for LH.

Conclusions

Mesh application should be considered for LPHR because it reduces recurrences at least in the mid-term. Overall procedure-related complications and mortality seem to not be increased despite of potential mesh-associated complications.

Pledgeted repair of giant hiatal hernia provides excellent long-term results

BACKGROUND

Use of mesh in hiatal hernia repairs is a topic of debate. We present our experience in laparoscopic primary (nonmesh) repair of giant hiatal hernia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All laparoscopic antireflux procedures done by a single surgeon from November 1997 to October 2006 were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria were primary crural closure with pledgets and giant hiatal hernia (greater than one-third of the stomach in the chest by esophagram, greater than 5 cm in length endoscopically, or greater than one-third of the stomach in the chest operatively). We attempted to reach all patients who met inclusion criteria and administered the Reflux Symptom Index (RSI) and Quality of Life Scale for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (QLSGR) questionnaires.

RESULTS

In total, 89 patients met inclusion criteria. The male-to-female ratio was 32:57. Average age was 62.7 years. Average body mass index was 29.3 kg/m(2). Average length of stay was 2 days, and mean clinic follow-up was 161 days. At the most recent follow-up, 62% of patients were asymptomatic. The most common postoperative symptoms were dysphagia (16%), reflux/emesis (5%), bloating (5%), nausea (4%), epigastric pain (4%), and heartburn (3%). There were six (6.7%) recurrences on esophagogastroduodenoscopy or upper gastrointestinal examination. Five patients with recurrence were symptomatic. Of the 89 patients, 29 (33%) completed the questionnaire, with a mean follow-up of 69.7 months. Average RSI score was 12 (maximum possible score, 45). In six of nine categories, the average score was less than 1 (possible score, 0-5). Average QLSGR score was 12 (maximum possible score, 45). For satisfaction with the present condition, the average score was 4.34 (maximum score, 5), and 82.7% of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with their present condition.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic primary repair of giant hiatal hernia provides excellent long-term results. We found that 62% of patients were asymptomatic at the last follow-up and that 82% of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied. The recurrence rate was 6.7%.

EAES recommendations for the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most frequent benign disorders of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Management of GERD has always been controversial since modern medical therapy is very effective, but laparoscopic fundoplication is one of the few procedures that were quickly adapted to the minimal access technique. The purpose of this project was to analyze the current knowledge on GERD in regard to its pathophysiology, diagnostic assessment, medical therapy, and surgical therapy, and special circumstances such as GERD in children, Barrett's esophagus, and enteroesophageal and duodenogastroesophageal reflux.

METHODS

The European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) has tasked a group of experts, based on their clinical and scientific expertise in the field of GERD, to establish current guidelines in a consensus development conference. The expert panel was constituted in May 2012 and met in September 2012 and January 2013, followed by a Delphi process. Critical appraisal of the literature was accomplished. All articles were reviewed and classified according to the hierarchy of level of evidence and summarized in statements and recommendations, which were presented to the scientific community during the EAES yearly conference in a plenary session in Vienna 2013. A second Delphi process followed discussion in the plenary session.

RESULTS

Recommendations for pathophysiologic and epidemiologic considerations, symptom evaluation, diagnostic workup, medical therapy, and surgical therapy are presented. Diagnostic evaluation and adequate selection of patients are the most important features for success of the current management of GERD. Laparoscopic fundoplication is the most important therapeutic technique for the success of surgical therapy of GERD.

CONCLUSIONS

Since the background of GERD is multifactorial, the management of this disease requires a complex approach in diagnostic workup as well as for medical and surgical treatment. Laparoscopic fundoplication in well-selected patients is a successful therapeutic option.

Reinforcement of hiatal defect repair with absorbable mesh fixed with non-permanent devices

AIM

To report the results of an open label prospective study on a new technique for laparoscopic hiatal hernia (HH) repair with absorbable mesh fixed with absorbable materials Methods: From January 2011 to May 2013, 43 patients were treated; group A, 20 patients submitted to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG); group B, 13 patients submitted to revisional surgery for the diagnosis of HH and symptomatic GERD post-LSG; and group C, ten patients submitted to 360° fundoplication. All patients underwent cruroplasty reinforced with bio-absorbable mesh fixed with absorbable tacks and/or fibrin glue. Conversion rate, intra-operative complications, operative time (tacks vs tacks plus fibrin glue), perioperative complications, perioperative symptoms and radiological control set the criteria for clinical/surgical evaluation.

RESULTS

Conversion and mortality rate was 0%. The mean time for mesh fixation with the tacks vs tacks plus fibrin glue was 6.2 ± 2 vs 7.3 ± 3 min. The remission of GERD symptoms was observed in 39 patients, and we did not observe any cases of mesh-related complications at a mean follow-up of 17.4 months. Recurrence rate was 2.3% (one asymptomatic patient of group B).

CONCLUSIONS

Reinforcement with absorbable mesh-cancel bio mesh is a safe and effective option for laparoscopic HH repair in normal weight and obese patients.

Current readings: Failed hiatal hernia repair

Recurrent hiatal hernia is noted in up to 70% of patients undergoing reoperative antireflux procedure. Role of short esophagus vis-à-vis a need for Collis gastroplasty, mesh reinforcement of hiatus, and access of surgery (thoracotomy vs laparotomy) have been debated. The aim of this article is to review selected recent publications that address these issues.

Reoperative intervention in patients with mesh at the hiatus is associated with high incidence of esophageal resection--a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Mesh hiatoplasty is a widely debated topic among foregut surgeons. While short-term outcomes tout decreased recurrence rates, an increase in mesh-related complications has been reported. The aim of this study is to present a single-center experience with reoperative intervention in patients with previous mesh at the hiatus.

METHODS

After institutional review board approval, a prospectively maintained database was retrospectively queried to identify patients who underwent reoperative intervention between 2003 and spring of 2013 and had mesh placed at a previous hiatal hernia procedure. Patient charts were reviewed and data variables collected.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients (mean age of 56.7 ± 18.3; 19 females) who underwent 27 procedures met the inclusion criteria. Synthetic mesh was placed in 15 (56 %) procedures, while the remaining 12 had biologic mesh. The mean interval between reoperative intervention and previous surgery was 33 months. Dysphagia (56 %) was the most common presentation, while three patients had mesh erosion. Recurrent hiatus hernia (2 to 7 cm) was noted in 19 (70 %) patients. Eight patients (30 %) underwent redo fundoplication, six patients (22 %) were converted to Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy, two patients (7.4 %) underwent distal esophagectomy with esophagojejunostomy, five patients (19 %) had subtotal esophagectomy with gastric pull-up, and one patient underwent substernal gastric pull-up for esophageal bypass with interval esophagectomy. The mean operative time was 252 ± 71.7 min, and the median blood loss was 150 ml (range, 50-1,650 ml). There was no postoperative mortality.

CONCLUSION

Reoperative intervention in patients with mesh at the hiatus is associated with a high need for esophageal resection. More than two thirds of the patients also had a recurrent hiatal hernia.

Lower recurrence rates after mesh-reinforced versus simple hiatal hernia repair: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

Mesh hiatoplasty has been postulated to reduce recurrence rates, it is however prone to esophageal stricture, and early-term and mid-term dysphagia. The present meta-analysis was designed to compare the outcome between mesh-reinforced and primary hiatal hernia repair. The databases of Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched; only randomized controlled trials entered the meta-analytical model. Anatomic recurrence documented by barium oesophagography was defined as the primary outcome endpoint. Three randomized controlled trials reporting the outcomes of 267 patients were identified. The follow-up period ranged between 6 and 12 months. The weighted mean recurrence rates after primary and mesh-reinforced hiatoplasty were 24.3% and 5.8%, respectively. Pooled analysis demonstrated increased risk of recurrence in primary hiatal closure (odds ratio, 4.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-9.5; P=0.001). Mesh-reinforced hiatal hernia repair is associated with an approximately 4-fold decreased risk of recurrence in comparison with simple repair. The long-term results of mesh-augmented hiatal closure remain to be investigated.

The choice of primary repair or mesh repair for paraesophageal hernia: a decision analysis based on utility scores

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists on the use of mesh in the repair of paraesophageal hernias (PEH). This debate centers around the type of mesh used, its value in preventing recurrence, its short- and long-term complications, and the consequences of those complications compared with primary repair. Decision analysis is a method to account for the important aspects of a clinical decision. The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not the addition of mesh would be superior in PEH repair.

METHODS

A decision analysis model of the choice between primary repair and mesh repair of a PEH was constructed. The essential features of the decision were the rate of perioperative complications, PEH recurrence rate, reoperation rate after recurrence, rate of symptomatic recurrence, and type of outcome after reoperation. The literature was reviewed to obtain data for the decision analysis and the average rates used in the baseline analysis. A utility score was used as the outcome measure, with a perfect outcome receiving a score of 100 and death 0. Sensitivity analysis was used to determine if changing the rates of recurrence or reoperation changed the dominant treatment.

RESULTS

Using the baseline analysis, mesh repair was slightly superior to primary repair (utility score 99.59 vs 99.12, respectively). However, if recurrence rates were similar, primary repair would be slightly superior; whereas if reoperation rates were similar, mesh repair would be superior. Using sensitivity analysis, there are combinations of recurrence rates and reoperation rates that would make one repair superior to the other. However, these differences are relatively small.

CONCLUSIONS

Depending on what the decision-maker accepts as the recurrence and reoperation rates for these types of repair, either mesh or primary repair may be the treatment of choice. However, the differences between the two are small, and, perhaps, clinically inconsequential.

Allograft dermal matrix hiatoplasty during laparoscopic primary fundoplication, paraesophageal hernia repair, and reoperation for failed hiatal hernia repair

BACKGROUND

Hiatal repair failure is the nemesis of laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair as well as the major cause of failure of primary fundoplication and reoperation on the hiatus. Biologic prosthetics offer the promise of reinforcing the repair without risks associated with permanent prosthetics.

DESIGN

Retrospective evaluation of safety and relative efficacy of laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair using an allograft (acellular dermal matrix) onlay. Patients with symptomatic failures underwent endoscopic or radiographic assessment of hiatal status.

RESULTS

Greater than 6-month follow-up was available for 252 of 450 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic allograft-reinforced hiatal hernia repair between January 2007 and March 2011. No erosions, strictures, or persisting dysphagia were encountered. Adhesions were minimal in cases where reoperation was required. Failure of the hiatal repair at median 18 months (6-51 months) was significantly (p < 0.005) different between groups: group A (primary fundoplication with axial hernia ≤ 2 cm), 3.7 %; group B (primary fundoplication with axial hernia 2-5 cm), 7.1 %; group G (giant/paraesophageal), 8.8 %; group R (reoperative), 23.4 %. Additionally, mean time to failure was significantly shorter in group R (247 days) compared with the other groups (462-489 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of allograft reinforcement to the hiatus is safe at 18 months median follow-up. Reoperations had a significantly higher failure rate and shorter time to failure than the other groups despite allograft, suggesting that primary repairs require utmost attention and that additional techniques may be needed in reoperations. Patients with hiatal hernias >2 cm axially had a recurrence rate equal to that of patients undergoing paraesophageal hiatal hernia repair, and should be treated similarly.

Hiatal hernia, Barrett's esophagus, and long-term symptom control after laparoscopic fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine the long-term symptom control after laparoscopic fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and possible prognostic factors.

METHODS

A cohort of 271 patients, operated on at a university hospital from 1996 through 2002, was eligible for evaluation after a median interval of 102 months (range = 12-158). The time between surgery and recurrence of reflux symptoms (i.e., time to treatment failure) served as the end point for statistical analysis. Putative risk factors for symptom recurrence were analyzed by univariate analysis and by using Cox's multiple-hazards regression.

RESULTS

According to Kaplan-Meier estimates, the rate of reflux symptom recurrence was 15 % after 108 months, 11 % in cases without intestinal metaplasia, but 43 % in patients with long-segment (≥ 3 cm) Barrett's esophagus (BE; p < 0.0001). Reflux symptoms recurred in 22 % of cases with a hiatal hernia (HH) ≥ 3 cm before operation, but only in 7 % with smaller or absent HH (p = 0.005). Multivariate analysis revealed a relative risk of 6.6 (CI = 3.0-13.0) for long-segment BE and 3.0 (CI = 1.7-10.1) for HH ≥ 3 cm. A strong statistical interaction was found between HH ≥ 3 cm and long-segment BE: the small group (n = 18) of cases exhibiting both risk factors had an exaggerated recurrence rate of 72 % at 108 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic fundoplication for symptomatic GERD provided a long-lasting abolition of reflux symptoms in 231 of 271 (85 %) patients. HH ≥ 3 cm and long-segment BE were shown as independent prognostic factors favoring recurrence.

Use of mesh for hiatal hernia repair: a survey of SAGES members

BACKGROUND

Mesh use during hiatal hernia repair (HHR) has been suggested to be safe and effective. Concern has been raised about the risk of mesh-related complications, and the higher risk of complications if revisional hiatal surgery is undertaken after mesh has been used. Available data have not established a clear role for mesh in HHR. To assess surgeons' adoption of the use of mesh for HHR, SAGES members were surveyed regarding their practice related to mesh use for HHR.

METHODS

Between April and September 2010, an internet-based survey tool was used to survey SAGES members. Potential participants were contacted via e-mail and invited to complete the survey. Of the 5,323 attempted contacts, 5,024 reached active e-mail accounts. From these, 2,518 members responded (50% response rate).

RESULTS

The majority of respondents currently perform HHR (69%), but only 18% perform more than 20 per year. Of those who perform HHR, 94% use a laparoscopic approach for the majority of repairs. Whereas 25% of surgeons use mesh for the majority of repairs, 23% of surgeons never use mesh. When mesh is used, an absorbable mesh is most commonly used (67%). An onlay technique is used by 93% of respondents. Only 7% of surgeons who have been in practice more than 20 years use mesh compared with 59% of surgeons in practice less than 10 years. Fifty-seven percent of surgeons have never performed revisional foregut surgery on a patient with prior mesh.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the majority of surgeons have used mesh for HHR, it is the minority who use it routinely, with younger surgeons more likely to use mesh than older surgeons. Absorbable mesh is most commonly used. When mesh is used, an onlay technique is most commonly used. There is no clear accepted use of mesh in hiatal hernia repair.

The safety of biologic mesh for laparoscopic repair of large, complicated hiatal hernia

BACKGROUND

Biologic mesh is widely used for repair of large, complicated hiatal hernias. Recently, there have been reports of complications after its implantation. We studied the course of a large group of patients who had undergone hiatal hernia repair with use of biologic mesh to determine the rate of immediate and late complications related to its use.

METHODS

All patients who had biologic mesh placed at the hiatus and who had been followed for at least 1 year were included. Perioperative data were reviewed, and a questionnaire was administered, designed to identify symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux, other symptoms such as dysphagia, and all other operative or endoscopic interventions that occurred after mesh implantation. In addition, postoperative radiologic and endoscopic studies were reviewed to assess signs of complications related to use of mesh.

RESULTS

There were 126 patients eligible for the study. We were able to contact 73 of these patients, at median follow-up of 45 months. No mesh-related complications were found. The frequency and severity of heartburn, regurgitation, and dysphagia improved significantly compared with preoperative values, and 89% of the patients reported good to excellent results in terms of overall satisfaction. Six patients recorded worsening of dysphagia postoperatively, but after careful work-up and review of each individual case, no case seemed to be directly related to the mesh. No erosions, strictures, or other complications directly related to use of mesh were found. One patient required reoperation due to hiatal hernia recurrence with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of biologic mesh for laparoscopic repair of large, complicated hiatal hernias appears safe. There were no major complications related to the mesh, and overall satisfaction with the operation was very good.